Senate passes funding bill despite vaccine mandate flap, averting shutdown

Senate lawmakers voted Thursday night to approve a bill that funds the government through Feb. 18, avoiding a government shutdown with roughly 24 hours to spare despite a partisan clash regarding President Biden’s federal vaccine mandate.

The Senate voted 69-28 in favor of the continuing resolution, which approves government funding at the prior year’s levels until a new bipartisan agreement is reached. The resolution includes $7 billion in new funding to support Afghan refugees.

The bill now proceeds to Biden’s desk for final approval.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., arrives at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 30, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (Associated Press)

“I am glad that in the end, cooler heads prevailed. The government will stay open,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, said. “And I thank the members of this chamber for walking us back from the brink of an avoidable, needless and costly shutdown.”

Moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was among the senators who voted in favor of the continuing resolution.

“In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and as the new Omicron variant emerges, I will not vote to shut down the government for purely political reasons,” Manchin said in a statement. 

A standoff between Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans over the federal vaccine mandate nearly derailed the vote. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Roger Marshall of Kansas demanded a separate vote on an amendment to bar funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the entity responsible for implementing Biden’s mandate. 

Schumer allowed the vote on the amendment to proceed ahead of the vote on the continuing resolution. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2021, to speak about immigration at the U.S.- Mexico boarder. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) (Associated Press)

Senators voted to reject Marshall’s amendment on the vaccine mandate. The amendment fell short of the 51 votes required to pass. Manchin and fellow moderate Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona each voted against the measure.

Republicans widely oppose the mandate, which forces companies with 100 or more employees to ensure their employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing. GOP lawmakers argue the mandate is too broad and constitutes federal overreach.

“No precedent exists in American history for punishing private employers who don’t enforcement government vaccination edicts,” Marshall said in a floor speech ahead of the vote on his amendment.

Lee said millions of Americans were “being threatened right now with losing their jobs” due to the mandate. He argued that Democrats, not Republicans, risked the shutdown in their effort to prevent a vote on the amendment.

“Those in this chamber who shamefully were refusing over and over again to even let us cast a vote on that simple measure threatened to shut down all of government because they didn’t want us to have a chance, as the people’s elected lawmakers, to decide whether or not we should proceed with vaccine mandate enforcement,” Lee said.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., arrives at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2021, as a showdown looms with Democrats over raising the debt limit. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (Associated Press)

The vote on the continuing resolution brought the Senate in sync with House lawmakers, who hours earlier voted 221-212 in favor of the continuing resolution to fund the government through Feb. 18. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., was the lone GOP representative to vote in favor of the resolution.

This story has been updated.

Why auto executives are optimistic about long-term profits

Most auto executives are optimistic about the industry’s long-term profitability and the adoption of electric vehicles, even as they remain concerned about short-term problems such as the tight labor market and microchip shortage, a new survey of industry leaders found.

According to KPMG‘s 2021 Global Automotive Executive Survey, 53 percent of respondents said they were extremely or somewhat confident that the industry would achieve more profitable growth over the next five years, compared with 38 percent who said they were concerned. KPMG surveyed 1,118 executives around the world in August, ranging from CEOs to department heads at automakers, suppliers, startups and other companies.

“With all of the massive changes expected to happen in our industry, there is this sense of dynamism in the industry that I feel like is there now,” said Gary Silberg, global head of automotive at KPMG International.

Executives in the U.S. and China appeared to be the most optimistic about profitability moving forward, the data showed. Silberg attributed the optimism among American executives to the growth of EV and mobility startups around the country and investments in those areas by traditional automakers.

“You see a big delta in the views of the world around optimism and profitability when you get into Europe, India and elsewhere,” he said.

Semiconductor, trade concerns

The profit optimism comes even as executives signal major concerns about various issues in the short term. The vast majority of executives said they were concerned about supply continuity for semiconductors and commodities such as steel and aluminum, as well as rare earth elements, lithium and other components needed for batteries.

At the same time, 57 percent of executives said they expected the cost and complexity of tariffs, trade rules and regulations to significantly or somewhat increase over the next five years, compared with just 17 percent who expect them to decrease.

“There is definitely concern on the supply chain moving forward,” Silberg said. “That was the dichotomy for the industry: long-term optimism but near-term concern.”

As the industry navigates the semiconductor shortage and the COVID-19 pandemic, 82 percent of executives said they believed their companies were at least moderately prepared for the industry’s next major crisis, compared with 15 percent who said they were slightly prepared or 3 percent who were not at all prepared. American executives again signaled more optimism than the rest of the world, with KPMG saying there was a 58-point disparity between those who said they were prepared and those who said they were not.

EV adoption

As the industry prepares to roll out dozens of electric vehicles in the coming years and as governments implement EV mandates and targets, auto executives on average say they expect the EV market to take off worldwide over the next decade.

On average, executives said they expected 52 percent of all new vehicles sold in the U.S., China and Japan to be electric by 2030. Western European EV sales are expected to make up 48 percent of the market by then, compared with 41 percent of sales in Brazil and 39 percent in India.

Still, Silberg said views from executives on how big of a share of the market EVs will gain varied wildly, with answers ranging anywhere from 5 percent to 90 percent.

“It’s all over the board,” Silberg said. EV market share will be “up, but there is no consensus on what it might end up being.”

Most executives (77 percent) said they believed EVs could achieve “widespread adoption” within 10 years even without “government intervention,” though 91 percent said consumer subsidies for EVs were helpful.

Still, they pinpointed a potential roadblock in EV adoption: charging times. According to the survey, 77 percent of executives think consumers will be willing to wait only 30 minutes or less for a charge of 80 percent or better.

Achieving that would require the installation of more DC fast-charging stations, Silberg said. Fewer than 20 percent of EV chargers in the U.S. today are fast charging, according to KPMG, and they can cost as much $100,000 to install.

Direct-to-consumer sales
Industry leaders expect automotive retail to continue evolving. The survey found 78 percent of executives think the majority of new-vehicle purchases worldwide will be completed online by 2030.

At the same time, 46 percent of executives think 60 percent or more of all new-vehicle sales will be by automakers directly to consumers in their home markets by 2030. Another 28 percent think between 40 and 59 percent of sales will be direct to consumer, and just 3 percent of executives think fewer than 1 in 5 sales will be direct.

About 74 percent of executives said they think a “seamless and hassle-free” experience will be very or extremely important to consumers looking to purchase a vehicle in the next five years, outpacing factors such as driving performance (71 percent) and brand or image (64 percent).

“There’s a sense, globally and not just in the U.S., that if you go to the dealer, people are fed up with that experience,” Silberg said. “You see it in this data. Those that can give a seamless, great experience are going to win in the marketplace.”

KPMG said one-third of the survey’s respondents were CEOs, presidents or chairmen, while 29 percent were C-level executives. The rest was made up of the heads and managers of business units and department heads. About three out of four respondents were from China, the U.S. or Europe, with companies ranging from less than $100 million in annual revenue to more than $10 billion.

What level of physical activity is helpful?

Share on Pinterest
Who does exercise benefit the most when it comes to cardiovascular disease risk? A new study investigates. Image credit: Kristian Buus/In Pictures via Getty Images
  • Cardiovascular disease is an umbrella term for disorders that impact either the heart, blood vessels, or both.
  • Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity has many benefits, but it may provide the most help to people who already have cardiovascular disease.
  • Physical activity that individuals do during their leisure time may provide the highest level of health benefits.

Cardiovascular disease, or all disorders that impact the heart or blood vessels, is highly prevalent and serious. Experts estimate that almost half of all American adults have some form of cardiovascular disease.

A recent study that appears in PLOS Medicinefound that individuals with cardiovascular disease can reap high benefits from physical activity.

However, among healthy individuals, there comes the point where increasing the level of physical exercise does not provide additional health benefits.

But researchers in this study found that the benefits of physical activity did not reach a similar plateau among participants with cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a broad term. As the National Institutes of Health (NIH) notes, CVD is any disease that impacts the heart or blood vessels, while heart disease includes disorders that specifically affect the heart.

Several disorders fall under the category of CVD, including:

The treatments for CVD can vary. Depending on the severity of the issue, people with CVD may need to take medications or undergo surgery.

Several risk factors increase a person’s risk of getting CVD. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that having high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or diabetes increases a person’s risk for heart disease.

People can modify some risk factors to help prevent adverse health outcomes due to CVD.

Experts are still discovering how individuals can best prevent CVD and reduce their overall risk of death. Physical activity has been the subject of many studies, and experts are still learning who benefits from it the most.

The study in question was a cohort study that researchers conducted in the Netherlands. It included a total of 142,493 participants. The team wanted to find out if people’s cardiovascular health status impacted the overall benefit of physical activity.

In other words, is physical activity helpful for everyone at the same level or does it help those who already have CVD more?

Researchers also wanted to find out if the reason for the physical activity impacted the benefits. For example, are people who have to be physically active for a job reaping the same benefits as those who are physically active in their leisure time?

Because there are so many risk factors and CVD includes many disorders, researchers in this study had to define their terms carefully.

They looked at three broad groups of people and used the following definitions:

  • Healthy individuals: These participants had all cardiovascular risk factors in a normal range and reported no known CVD.
  • Individuals with at least one CVD risk factor: These participants had either self-reported high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and/or diabetes, plus medications to control the respective risk factors, or had confirmed high cholesterol or blood sugar levels, and no reported CVD.
  • Individuals with CVD: These individuals had a history of heart failure, heart attack, or stroke and used medications for these conditions.

Each participant filled in a baseline questionnaire and undertook a physical exam. The questionnaire included information about lifestyle, health history, and diet. Researchers collected baseline data from each participant and followed up with them an average of 6.8 years later after collecting the baseline data.

The team further questioned participants about their level of physical activity. This information determined each participant’s amount of exercise that fit the study’s definition of moderate to vigorous.

They also divided types of physical activity into three categories:

  1. Leisure physical activity was all the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that participants did during their leisure time.
  2. Nonleisure physical activity was all the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that people did not do in their leisure time, such as during work or household chores.
  3. Occupational physical activity was all the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that participants did related to work. This was a subcategory of nonleisure physical activity.

The team looked at the relationship between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, all causes of death, and major adverse cardiovascular events. They included heart attacks, strokes, chronic and acute heart failure, and any major heart or chest-related surgeries, such as heart transplants and heart bypass surgeries, in their analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Researchers found that overall, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity had links to lower all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. But they also found that it was most beneficial to the group of participants that already had CVD.

Study first author, Dr. Esmée Bakker, explained to Medical News Today that “for healthy individuals and those with cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes, we found that increasing exercise volumes led to a gradual risk reduction up to a point at which a plateau occurs.”

Dr. Bakker went on to explain that this result was different for participants who already had CVD:

“Cardiovascular disease patients demonstrated a different pattern, however, with every increase in physical activity volume leading to a further risk reduction of mortality and cardiovascular events. This finding emphasizes that more exercise is better for [CVD] patients.”

Researchers also found that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that participants did in their leisure time was associated with the highest level of health benefits. Nonleisure moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was associated with some health benefits, and occupational moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was associated with no benefits.

Overall, the researchers concluded that physical activity recommendations should consider cardiovascular health status and the physical activity’s — leisure versus nonleisure — nature.

However, the study did have some limitations. First of all, the research was observational, meaning it cannot prove that higher physical activity prevents mortality or adverse cardiovascular events. Secondly, some of the data were self-reported, which runs the risk of inaccurate data collection.

Dr. Edo Paz, cardiology specialist VP of Medical at K Health, noted the following study limitations to MNT:

“First off, activity level is self-reported, which can be inaccurate. Another key limitation of this study is that it is an observational study and thus limited by confounding. That means that exercise may be highly correlated with another factor (like weight, nutritional status, etc.), and it is actually that other factor that predicts cardiovascular events. Although the authors tried to account for these confounding factors, it is not possible to collect or control for them all.”

Finally, the authors did not examine the impact of light intensity physical activity — the study specifically examined moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

The researchers note that other studies have looked at how doing some physical activity is better than doing none at all. They note that starting with lower levels of physical activity can help some people increase their regular physical activity level.

It is also important to remember that everyone is different, and physical activity levels will look different for different people.

Dr. Paz told MNT: “It seems clear that physical activity is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, which is why the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends getting 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous aerobic activity. However, this study indicates that these recommendations should always be personalized.”

Overall, the results indicate that physical activity recommendations should take into account a person’s cardiovascular health.

Dr. Bakker explained that the “[o]utcomes from this study are useful to further optimize physical activity recommendations by taking cardiovascular health status into account so that every individual, irrespective of cardiovascular health status, can optimally benefit from a physically active lifestyle.”

Further research would include looking at how to implement the best exercise plans for people with CVD.

Cardiology specialist Prof. Bernard Cheung — Sun Chieh Yeh Heart Foundation professor in Cardiovascular Therapeutics at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Medicine — explained to MNT that “[c]aution should be exercised before getting cardiovascular disease patients to exercise to their limits […] more research is needed on what exercise programs are best for patients with different forms of cardiovascular disease (e.g., angina, heart failure).”

“The present study highlights the importance of evidence-based recommendations in this area,” he noted.

What channel is Cowboys vs. Saints on today? Schedule, time for NFL ‘Thursday Night Football’ in Week 13

The Cowboys head to New Orleans to face the Saints in a NFC battle on ‘Thursday Night Football’ this week.

The Cowboys (7-4) are coming off two straight losses to AFC West teams, the Raiders and the Chiefs. The Saints (5-6) are coming off four straight losses, including a blowout 31-6 loss to the Bills on Thanksgiving.

After getting a whole week off, the Cowboys are dealing with some COVID-19 issues. Coach Mike McCarthy tested positive on Monday. Wide receiver Amari Cooper tested positive back on Nov. 19, but since he is unvaccinated, he’s had to miss the last two games. He’s expected to play on Thursday night. 

The Saints have been dealing with quarterback issues for the last month since their starting QB Jameis Winston suffered a season ending torn ACL. Trevor Siemian started the last four games, so he has yet to win a game for the Saints. Taysom Hill, who started some for the Saints last season, is expected to start on Thursday. He suffered a concussion in Week 5, and has been dealing with a foot injury since.

Here’s everything you need to know to watch the Cowboys vs. Saints game on ‘Thursday Night Football,’ including kickoff time, TV channels and a full ‘Thursday Night Football’ 2021 schedule.

MORE: Watch Cowboys vs. Saints live with fuboTV (7-day free trial)

What channel is Cowboys vs. Saints on tonight?

  • TV channel: Fox, NFL Network
  • Live stream: Amazon Prime, fuboTV

Both Fox and NFL Network will broadcast the “Thursday Night Football” game between the Cowboys and the Saints. Joe Buck and Troy Aikman will broadcast from the booth, while Erin Andrews and Kristina Pink will report from the sidelines.

Additionally, fans can stream the game on Amazon Prime with the same broadcast that’s shown on Fox and NFL Network.

Fans can also stream NFL games with fuboTV, which offers a seven-day free trial.

Meanwhile, viewers in Canada can watch the game on DAZN free with a 30-day trial.

Cowboys vs. Saints start time

  • Date: Thursday, Dec. 2
  • Time: 8:20 p.m. ET 

The Cowboys vs. Saints game will kick off at 8:20 p.m. ET at Caesars Superdome in New Orleans, La. All “Thursday Night Football” games in 2021 are scheduled to begin at 8:20 p.m. ET.

NFL live stream for ‘Thursday Night Football’

If you don’t have access to cable, there are multiple options for streamers to watch “Thursday Night Football” games. Here’s a list below if you don’t have cable.

Streaming option Cable subscription needed? Free? Cost Free trial?
NFL App No Yes
Yahoo! Sports App No Yes
DirecTV Stream No No $69.99/month No
fuboTV No No $60/month Yes
Hulu Plus Live TV No No $55/month Yes
Sling TV No No $30/month Yes
YouTube TV No No $65/month Yes

Cowboys schedule 2021

Week Date Opponent Time (ET) TV Channel
13 Dec. 2 at Saints 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
14 Dec. 12 at WFT 1:00 p.m. Fox
15 Dec. 19 at Giants 1:00 p.m. Fox
16 Dec. 26 WFT 8:20 p.m. NBC
17 Jan. 2 Cardinals 1:00 p.m. Fox
18 Jan. 9 at Eagles 1:00 p.m. Fox

Saints schedule 2021

Week Date Opponent Time (ET) TV Channel
13 Dec. 2 Cowboys 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
14 Dec. 12 @Jets 1:00 p.m. CBS
15 Dec. 19 @Buccaneers 8:20 p.m. NBC
16 Dec. 27 Dolphins 8:15 p.m. ESPN
17 Jan. 2 Panthers 1:00 p.m. Fox
18 Jan. 9 @Falcons 1:00 p.m. Fox

‘Thursday Night Football’ schedule 2021

Week Date Matchup Time (ET) TV Channel
1 Sept. 9 Cowboys @ Buccaneers 8:20 p.m. NBC
2 Sept. 16 Giants @ WFT 8:20 p.m. NFL Network
3 Sept. 23 Panthers @ Texans 8:20 p.m. NFL Network
4 Sept. 30 Jaguars @ Bengals 8:20 p.m. NFL Network
5 Oct. 7 Rams @ Seahawks 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
6 Oct. 14 Buccaneers @ Eagles 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
7 Oct. 21 Broncos @ Browns 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
8 Oct. 28 Packers @ Cardinals 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
9 Nov. 4 Jets @ Colts 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
10 Nov. 11 Ravens @ Dolphins 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
11 Nov. 18 Patriots @ Falcons 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
12 Nov. 25 Bills @ Saints 8:20 p.m. NBC
13 Dec. 2 Cowboys @ Saints 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
14 Dec. 9 Steelers @ Vikings 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
15 Dec. 16 Chiefs @ Chargers 8:20 p.m. Fox, NFL Network
16 Dec. 23 49ers @ Titans 8:20 p.m. NFL Network

First omicron variant case discovered in United States in California

Virgil Abloh mourned by Kanye West, Kardashians, Hailey Bieber, BTS