�鶹Ů��

Of all the tools the government has to combat Covid-19, Medicaid is arguably one of the most important. Medicaid provides health insurance for millions of Americans in low-paid service jobs, the essential workers who are among those most vulnerable to contracting and spreading the virus. Medicaid also pays the bills for millions of nursing home residents, whose lives are most at risk, and provides a critical link to primary care physicians for millions more families who will need to be vaccinated in coming months. But if Medicaid is more important now than ever, it is also at its most vulnerable. Medicaid is inherently countercyclical — its enrollment and spending increase during economic downturns. Unfortunately, economic recessions are also when state revenues decrease, meaning that just when it’s needed most, states may be forced to slash Medicaid spending. (Nisarg Patel, Daniel Liebman and Smitha Ganeshan, 2/8)

There has been some pushback from progressive pundits — most notably Larry Summers, but he’s not alone — against President Biden’s proposal for a very large Covid relief package. Before I get into the reasons I believe this pushback is misguided, let me say that it’s refreshing to discuss good-faith criticism coming from people who actually have some idea what they’re talking about, as opposed to the cynical, know-nothing obstructionism that has become the Republican norm.Nonetheless, the critics are wrong. No, the Biden plan isn’t too big. While the pundits’ concern that the size of the package might produce some economic stresses isn’t silly, it’s probably overwrought. And they have the implications of an expansive plan for the future completely backward: Going big now will enhance, not reduce, our ability to do more later. (Paul Krugman, 2/7)

What is China trying to hide about the origins of the pandemic — and why? In Wuhan, a World Health Organization team has launched its investigation into the origins of the virus that has infected 105 million people worldwide and cost 2.2 million lives over the past year. The terms of reference for the investigation say it will be “open-minded” and “not excluding any hypothesis” about the origins of the virus. Many scientists have speculated that the virus leaped from animals, such as bats, to humans, perhaps with an intermediate stop in another animal. This kind of zoonotic spillover has occurred before, such as in the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2014. But there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. (2/5)

Government officials from Western Australia announced on Sunday that millions of people in the southwest part of our state would plunge into a strict, five-day lockdown after the first case of community transmission in 10 months was detected in a hotel quarantine security guard. The guard had unfortunately contracted the new strain of the coronavirus first identified in Britain. It may seem strange to act so aggressively for a single case, but we Australians complied. There were no complaints of infringing on freedoms. No marches against masks. My city of Perth came to a standstill. The roads were quiet, and our beaches were deserted. A trip to the supermarket for essential groceries saw everyone wearing a mask — for the first time. Other states restricted travel of West Australians, desperate to keep the virus out. (Nikki Stamp, 2/4)

We can call Drisana Rios, a San Diego mom and former insurance executive, the patient zero of the current women’s employment crisis. Rios broke into headlines last summer when she filed a lawsuit alleging her employer fired her when she couldn’t keep the noise of her toddler children off Zoom meetings. Her employer, she says, complained she had “time-management issues.” (The employer disputes this and told The Post it denies all the allegations.) I reached out to Rios and her attorney this week to get an update. She’s interviewing for new positions but, Rios’s attorney, Daphne Delvaux, told me via an email she is “not yet employed.” (Helaine Olen, 2/5)

As the Food and Drug Administration moves closer to a decision about whether to approve a promising new Alzheimer’s treatment, the collaboration between scientists, regulators, and business leaders that produced this encouraging drug has come under fire as a “black eye” for the FDA that “dangerously compromised” its objectivity. This unfortunate charge misconstrues the drug development process and the indispensable partnerships that are needed to deliver new treatments. (George Vradenburg and Jeffrey Cummings, 2/8)