April 20, 2022: This article has been updated to include information about the Department of Justice’s filing notice to appeal to reinstate the transportation mask mandate.
When a federal judge struck down the mandate for mask wearing on planes, buses and other modes of public transportation on Monday, most major airlines wasted no time in ending their requirements. Passengers even cheered midflight when they were told they could take off their masks. The science on masking did not change this week, yet public health experts and policymakers are now forced to acknowledge what many will no longer do to protect others.
The Department of Justice filed notice to appeal the ruling after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that extending the mask requirement is necessary. But it’s unclear how long the mandate would remain in place if reinstated, as it was already set to expire on May 3.
It’s an unfortunate reality that mask mandates, and masks themselves, have become politicized and unpopular for many. It’s why several governors and businesses rolled back requirements long before coronavirus case numbers dropped, and it is likely why airlines were also quick to do so. These groups have interests that compete with science. Members of the public who want to live as they did in 2019 can sway those groups if they are loud enough, even if they’re not the majority.
But the fact is that despite a desire to live as if Covid were no longer a threat, the United States does not have enough protections in place to do so right now. The interventions that make it safer to live normally again, like access to testing and drugs to treat Covid, are not equitably available to everyone. Vaccination and booster rates are not where they should be.
This pandemic is not over. A new variant could emerge at any time, and cases are rising in some parts of the country. Too many people are, according to the C.D.C., still at risk. The judge’s ruling may argue that the organization has exceeded its statutory authority, but that doesn’t mean that we’re out of the woods.
It’s not yet time to give up on measures that might protect the public and make places and activities safer for those who cannot protect themselves. But instead of continuing to bicker about things that have become hopelessly politicized like mask mandates, those in public health could focus on efforts that might make much more of a difference. One way forward is to identify and vocally get behind policies and tools with potentially higher impact and lower risk of backlash.
One of the most important is getting better ventilation in many buildings across the country. Too many don’t have filtration capabilities to remove infectious particles from the air, and too many aren’t of high enough quality to prevent spread.
Another policy that was important before Covid but is now imperative involves robust sick leave. Too many Americans are fearful of staying home if they’re ill, afraid to lose income or, even worse, employment. The American work culture still values toughing it out, and campaigns are needed to explain that this is not only misguided but also dangerous.
The law also needs to support better work accommodations for those truly still at increased risk, especially the immunocompromised. Some people may need to work from home; others may not be able to work at all. They and even some of their caregivers may need extra support as long as risk from Covid exists.
It is intolerable that disparities in the health care system still exist that prevent Covid-19 treatments from being equitably available to all. Making them free is necessary but not sufficient. The testing, prescription and sourcing need to be easily accessible for everyone, and yet many of those who need the most help are struggling to get it.
Cajoling has gotten the United States as far as it’s going to get on immunizations. Mandates work, but they’ve become politically toxic as well. America’s public health apparatus needs to get much more innovative with vaccination campaigns. Health workers could go out into communities door to door or where people work or spend their time and could offer them immediate immunization. We could do better at explaining how vaccines are free, safe and easily received. Public health departments should train a legion of trusted voices within different populations to help with the effort.
When Covid-19 came to my university and many others, we didn’t put the onus of risk management on students, faculty and other staff members. We invested in public health infrastructure; built labs to test for Covid locally; made testing easy; ran on-site vaccination clinics; increased Covid leave time for quarantine, isolation and even vaccine side effects; and shifted to work-at-home policies when appropriate.
Our success also depended on communicating extensively, so people knew what we were doing and why, especially if the policies we were adopting were unpopular. We were clear that when coronavirus cases rose sharply, as they did in January, we might need to increase protections, like requiring masks in all indoor spaces. When things got much safer, we ended our mask mandate in March. But the institutional interventions continued, and we have a high level of vaccination, at over 90 percent.
Committing to large-scale efforts that are less contentious and more effective seems like an easy choice. We spend too much time fighting one another and not enough time fighting the pandemic. Every day we do so, everyone loses.
That group, which has ties to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, often worked to provide security at Stop the Steal rallies alongside the Oath Keepers. On Monday, another Oath Keeper charged in the sedition case released a trove of the group’s internal messages showing that its leader, Mr. Rhodes, enjoyed working with the 1st Amendment Praetorian and called protecting Mr. Jones at pro-Trump rallies “a great feather in our cap.”
During his Infowars show, Mr. Jones went on to discuss his relationship with Caroline Wren, a former Trump campaign aide and fund-raising expert who helped arrange Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. Mr. Jones said that Ms. Wren was among a group of people who led him “to the back of the stage so we could then go and get around the crowd and go lead the march.”
In its letter issuing a subpoena to Mr. Jones, the House committee said that he, Ms. Wren and Ms. Chafian worked with a donor, Julie Fancelli, an heiress to the Publix supermarket fortune, to provide “80 percent of the funding” for Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse. The committee also noted that in the run-up to Jan. 6, Mr. Jones frequently promoted Mr. Trump’s lies about a rigged election and “made statements implying” that he had knowledge of the former president’s plans for his rally.
That day, before Mr. Trump’s speech was finished, Mr. Jones left the Ellipse and marched to the Capitol with Mr. Alexander and Mr. Shroyer, encouraging the crowd around them with a bullhorn. Videos show Mr. Jones shouting chants like, “We’ve only begun to fight” and then receiving word that the building had been breached shortly after 1:30 p.m.
“We got to get this right,” Mr. Jones can be heard telling Mr. Shroyer just before leading the crowd closer to the Capitol. Along the way, the videos show, he led the crowd in chants about “globalists” and declared, “We’re not surrendering.”
The committee has acknowledged that once Mr. Jones reached the Capitol, he told the mob there not to be violent and to gather on the east side of the building, where Mr. Alexander had a permit for a rally, suggesting that Mr. Trump would ultimately meet the group. But Mr. Trump never came to address the crowd and Mr. Jones’s words had the effect of massing crowds on both sides of the Capitol.
The Jan. 6 investigation is only one of the legal troubles Mr. Jones is facing.
On Sunday, three companies affiliated with him, among them Infowars, filed for Chapter 11 protection following his prominent losses in defamation lawsuits in Texas and Connecticut connected to the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, which Mr. Jones had claimed was a hoax.
A study claiming that psychopaths and others with ‘Dark Tetrad’ personality traits are drawn to crypto has been criticized as “meaningless” for showing very weak correlativity by a psychology expert from The University of Otago.
Researchers with backgrounds predominately in marketing and advertising from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) surveyed 566 people on their attitudes toward crypto and correlated the results with four specific personality traits: narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism.
The findings were first shared by The U.S. Sun, and were widely syndicated by the mainstream media, with the New York Post headline screaming “Bitcoin fans are psychopaths who don’t care about anyone,” and Salon asserting that “Impulsive psychopaths like crypto”.
But speaking to Cointelegraph, Professor Martin Sellbom from The University of Otago’s Psychology Department — an international expert on personality disorders and personality assessment — criticized the results of the study as essentially meaningless.
“The effects they report, for example, the strength of relationships between these so-called ‘dark tetrad’ traits and attitude and intention to buy cryptocurrency are very weak, pretty much meaningless, in my opinion.”
The widely used Short Dark Triad (SD-3) personality test which rates the traits of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism out of a maximum score of 5 was used to assess participants’ personalities.
The results of the study show that participant’s scores for psychopathy and narcissism were below the average levels as determined by psychometric assessment group OpenPsychometrics. The participants scored 2% below the average for psychopathy and 16.7% below average for narcissism, however the scores for Machievellism were 3.6% higher.
But Professor Sellbom said that in any case this line of research is “uninformative about psychopathy and narcissism,” adding:
“The measurement devices used in this literature do not capture the full manifestations of these disorders.”
The authors expanded on their results in an article for The Conversation, stating that narcissists like crypto “because of their great faith in the future”, and because of a “confidence their own lives will improve”.
Psychopaths were drawn to crypto apparently, because they “fear missing out on investing rewards that others are experiencing,”and Machiavellians like crypto because “they distrust politicians and government agencies.”
Other traits, like positivity, and belief in conspiracy theories were also measured as traits that “might connect the dark tetrad judgements about crypto”.
Of those surveyed only 26% owned cryptocurrency, and of those who didn’t nearly 64% said they would be “interested” in investing.
Sellbom said the methodology to link traits such as FOMO to psychopathy was flawed as collecting a sample of both the level of interest in crypto and psychometric results at the same time, from the same person only once, is “pretty much uninformative”, adding the conclusions the researchers reached “cannot be supported in the simple way that they are presenting.”
“Looking at the same results, my interpretation would be the relationship between dark tetrad traits and attitudes towards and buying intention of cryptocurrency is weak, and it is unlikely that these traits will provide much understanding of those who do engage in purchasing cryptocurrency.”
It should be noted the researchers themselves stated in the report that they aren’t out to propose that Bitcoiners are psychopaths, in the way some media outlets were quick to declare.
“We are not suggesting all crypto buyers exhibit Dark Tetrad traits. Instead, we are studying a subset of people interested in crypto who do have these traits.”
Discussing the limitations of their work, the researchers said that whilst they gauged participant interest in investing in stocks, bonds or crypto, the study could have set a control variable by measuring their intention of engaging in those types of investments.
“Many experts on psychopathy and narcissism question this so-called dark personality literature,” said Professor Sellbom, “because the researchers are not really studying these personality disorders, which are far more complex than what the measures used would suggest.”
The authors of the study are Brett Martin, Professor of Marketing QUT; Dr. Di Wang, Senior Lecturer at the QUT School of Advertising and Marketing; Jun Yao, Senior Lecturer in Marketing Macquarie University; Carolyn Strong, Professor of Marketing and Strategy Cardiff University; and Polymeros Chrysochou, Professor of Marketing Aarhus University.
Given the authors’ background in marketing and advertising, it seems possible they would understand how to frame the results of a study in a way to appeal to the mass media.
Several international airlines, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, updated their policies on Tuesday to make masks optional on flights to U.S. destinations. They had previously stopped requiring masks on many routes to the Caribbean.
Do I still have to test when flying into the United States?
Yes, indeed. Every traveler over the age of 2 flying into the United States, regardless of vaccination status or citizenship, must show a negative coronavirus test taken the day before boarding. Alternatively, people who have tested positive in the past 90 days may travel with positive viral test results and a signed letter from a licensed health care provider or a public health official saying that they have been cleared for travel.
Unlike the federal mask mandate, there is no expiration date on this requirement. Airlines and trade organizations representing the hospitality industry have been lobbying for the C.D.C. to lift the requirement, which they say is financially damaging. The White House said earlier this month that there were no immediate plans to remove the rule.
Can I get refunded if I’m not comfortable flying amid unmasked people?
It depends. Airlines do not seem to be offering any special type of refund for people in this situation. If you booked a nonrefundable fare, you may be out of luck. Your best bet may be getting a credit or rebooking the flight for some distant date; most airlines no longer charge change fees on all but basic economy flights.
If you are flying Delta, though, you can plead your case. “We hear situations out on a case-by-case basis and make a determination,” a spokesman for Delta said on Wednesday.
Southwest offers a voucher or a refund, depending on the type of ticket.
In response to this question, American Airlines sent its standard refund policy which requires a traveler to cancel within 24 hours on a nonrefundable ticket.
The sudden change of mask rules has caused anxiety for some travelers. Susanna Speier, 49, who has Crohn’s disease, is among the many immunocompromised Americans now grappling with what to do about upcoming travel plans. When she committed to attending a conference in Austin, Texas, on April 28, Ms. Speier, who lives in Denver, understood that everyone on the plane would be wearing a mask.
Johnny Depp, 58, has revealed surprising information about his wedding to Amber Heard and the impact it had on his daughter Lily-Rose Depp. On Wednesday, the actor testified in his defamation trial against his now-ex-wife in Fairfax, Virginia, and allegedly revealed that she and the 22-year-old actress and model, whom he shares with former Vanessa Paradis, did not get along.
“Lily-Rose did not come to the wedding. She and Ms. Heard were not on particularly great terms for several reasons,” he said during his testimony, according to PEOPLE. Johnny and Amber married in February 2015 on his own island in the Bahamas, and he allegedly told the court that she and several of her friends used drugs, including a “communal bag of MDMA,” during their wedding celebration.
Johnny, who is also the father of a 20-year-old son named Jack, allegedly went on to explain that he and Amber did not have a prenuptial agreement and that subsequent conversations about acquiring one led them to disagree. He also allegedly said that he stayed in his turbulent marriage with Amber until 2017 because his “father stayed in his abusive marriage.”
However, Johnny’s statement follows his 2019 lawsuit against Amber over an op-ed she published for the Washington Post in 2018. She talked about surviving domestic abuse in it, and although she didn’t mention Johnny by name, he thinks it was implied, and his successful acting career has suffered as a result. In the lawsuit, he seeks USD 50 million.
Just hours after interim head coach Ralf Rangnick revealed that Manchester United needed ‘six, seven, maybe ten new players’ in the summer transfer window following a 4-0 hammering at the hands of title-chasing Liverpool, it has been announced that their long-term Chief scout Jim Lawlor will be leaving the club after 17 years at Old Trafford.
Chief scout Jim Lawlor was at Manchester United for 17 years, while head of global scouting Marcel Bout departs after eight.
Lawlor oversaw the spending of over £1 billion in transfer fees since the departure of Sir Alex Ferguson across five different managerial reigns, an eye-watering sum of money for any club, let alone a club with just 3 major trophies to their name in the near-decade since their legendary boss.
So, which of their transfers excelled, and which players flopped upon arrival at Old Trafford? 101 takes a look at how much was spent, and how they fared in the north west.
2013-14: £69.42 million
Juan Mata (£40.26m) – HIT
In his final days at the club now, Juan Mata is now well past his best but was an important player under David Moyes and Louis Van Gaal, appearing 33 games in 2014/15 and in every game of the 2015/16 season, where he racked up 26 goal contributions across two seasons.
His contributions to the side have faded in the seasons since, having racked up just 139 minutes across all competitions this season, but he has nonetheless been a good servant to the club even if he has perhaps outstayed his welcome.
Marouane Fellaini (£29.16m) – HIT
Following David Moyes from Everton to Manchester United, Fellaini became something of a laughing stock due to him often being thrown on as an auxiliary forward, but he was an important figure for the Red Devils under successive managers.
177 appearances for United yielded 22 goals and 12 assists, and while he didn’t start every game, he left fans with some memorable moments.
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – AUGUST 26: Marouane Fellaini of Manchester United celebrates scoring his sides second goal during the Premier League match between Manchester United and Leicester City at Old Trafford on August 26, 2017 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Michael Regan/Getty Images)
2014-15 : £175.82 million
Angel Di Maria (£67.50m) – MISS
Perhaps one of the biggest flops on the list, Angel di Maria only spent 12 months at Old Trafford before he was unceremoniously shipped off to Paris Saint Germain a season later for a loss.
He began his United career well, with 2 goals and 2 assists in his opening 3 games for the club, but never settled in Manchester and fell out with the management as he was moved around the pitch in an attempt to find results. 3 goals and 11 assists in 27 Premier League games mask a lot of the cracks that appeared at Old Trafford around the Argentine.
Luke Shaw (£33.75m) – HIT
Luke Shaw has never perhaps hit the heights expected of him when he became the most expensive full-back ever in the World in 2014, signing for Manchester United from Southampton.
Down in part to injuries, including a double leg break, and targetted abuse over his weight, Shaw has quietly gone about building his career at Manchester United since Jose Mourinho’s departure and was one of the best full-backs in the Premier League in the 2020-21 campaign.
Still able to walk into the side 8 years on from his arrival, it is safe to say that Shaw has proven good value for money.
Luke Shaw has been one of the better signings of the post-Fergie Era. (Photo by David S. Bustamante/Soccrates/Getty Images).
Ander Herrera (£32.40m)- HIT
Manchester United have been missing Ander Herrera ever since he left, which perhaps says more about their current options than the Spaniard himself. A hard-working option in the centre of the park who racked up nearly 200 appearances for the club, he can be viewed as a success despite his flaws.
Marcos Rojo (£18m) – MISS
One of several centre-backs on this list that have flattered to deceive, Marcos Rojo was largely signed by virtue of him having a left-foot. His Old Trafford career was plagued by injuries and loss of form, and he only ever managed 76 Premier League appearances across six seasons with the club.
Marcos Rojo of Manchester United in action during the UEFA Europa League group L match between Partizan and Manchester United at Partizan Stadium on October 24, 2019 in Belgrade, Serbia. (Photo by Srdjan Stevanovic/Getty Images)
The failures of Rojo and his successors at Old Trafford has left the centre of defence a position that the club seemingly need to strengthen every summer.
Daley Blind (£18.75m) – HIT
Bought to Manchester United at the request of fellow Dutchman Louis Van Gaal, Daley Blind arrived as a defensive midfielder but spent most of his Old Trafford career either at centre-back or left-back.
He was a regular presence in the 2015/16 Manchester United side, making 35 appearances in a side that had the joint best defence in the division despite finishing 5th. The time he was at the club for will not be remembered with any great fondness, but as an individual he was a successful piece of short-term business.
Radamel Falcao (Loan)- MISS
Coming off the back of a cruciate ligament injury that kept him sidelined for the back half of the 2013/14 season with Monaco, Manchester United took a risk on the Colombian forward as an answer to their goalscoring woes by adding him on loan, hoping that he could return to his free-scoring form.
He couldn’t, however. 29 appearances for the Red Devils yielded just 4 goals and 5 assists, and he only managed 90 minutes on five occasions in the Premier League. It was no surprise to see the club have no interest in making the loan move permanent at the end of the campaign.
Radamel Falcao of Manchester United looks on during the Barclays Premier League match between Manchester United and Newcastle United at Old Trafford. (Photo by Alex Livesey/Getty Images)
2015-16: £140.4 million
Anthony Martial (£54m) – MISS
“50 million, down the drain, Tony Martial scores again”, the Manchester United crowd sung everytime the Frenchman found the back of the net for the Red Devils.
And despite doing so to great effect in 2019/20, his career in Manchester has never really gone close to justifying the hefty fee shelled out for the now 26 year old.
There is still time for the current Sevilla loanee, with a new manager coming in who could change his fortunes. For now, however, it looks like another poor signing.
Morgan Schneiderlin (£31.5m) – MISS
The first of two successive players signed in the summer of 2015 and sold 18 months later, Morgan Schneiderlin seemed well out of his depth at Old Trafford. The Frenchman impressed at Southampton, persuading the Red Devils into splashing out over £30 million on the man they thought could fix their midfield.
A year and a half later, however, he was shipped off to Everton for a £10 million loss.
Memphis Depay (£30.6m)- MISS
Another subject to a swift stint in Manchester Red, Depay was brought to much fanfare following success in the Eredivise, but never adapted to English football and only lasted 18 months and under 1500 minutes of Premier League football.
Memphis Depay of Manchester United looks on during the UEFA Champions League Group B match between Manchester United FC and VfL Wolfsburg at Old Trafford. (Photo by Dean Mouhtaropoulos/Getty Images).
Two goals and one assist in that time was enough to convince Van Gaal that Depay was not up to scratch, and he was sold to Lyon in January 2017.
Matteo Darmian (£16.2m)- MISS
Darmian never really impressed in the Manchester United side, deployed in both full back roles to no great effect. His four year spell at the club, before he joined Parma in 2019, saw him manage 92 appearances and 4 goal contributions, while he never hit the 30 appearances mark in the Premier League across his time in the North West.
Bastian Schweinsteiger (£8.1m)- MISS
A decorated veteran snagged on the cheap from Bayern Munich, Schweinsteiger’s reputation preceded him when he made the move to Old Trafford. However, he failed to live up to such expectations, with injury and fitness keeping him to just 18 Premier League appearances in 18 months at the club.
Sergio Romero (Free)- HIT
As any keen shopper knows, you can never really go wrong with a freebie, and this was certainly true of Sergio Romero, who was widely considered the best no.2 in the Premier League for several seasons.
The Argentine should certainly have donned the no.1 Jersey more often than the 7 Premier League appearances he was afforded, and if not for David De Gea he would definitely have done so.
2016-17: £166.5m
Paul Pogba (£94.5m) – MISS
Set to depart on a free transfer this summer for the second time in his career, Paul Pogba has never lived up to his hefty price tag and was booed off in his most recent home game against Norwich.
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – APRIL 16: Paul Pogba of Manchester United is challenged by Kenny McLean of Norwich City during the Premier League match between Manchester United and Norwich City at Old Trafford on April 16, 2022 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Jan Kruger/Getty Images)
His return, dubbed ‘Pogback’ on social media, has been the most underwhelming signing on the list.
Henrikh Mkhitaryan (£37.8m) – MISS
Bought in with high expectations, Mkhitaryan was another that failed to carry his form over to Manchester. Coming in for almost £40 million, the Armenian managed just 13 goals and 11 assists in 63 appearances across all competitions before he was swapped for Alexis Sanchez, who did little better.
Eric Bailly (£34.2m) – MISS
Nicknamed “car crash Eric” in some areas of the fanbase, Bailly was unpredictable and not in a good way. Able to provide brilliant performances for 89 minutes, he would make a mistake that could prove crucial, and as a result never made himself an undroppable player.
For over £30 million, they would have expected more.
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – MARCH 13: Eric Bailly of Manchester United looks dejected in defeat after the UEFA Champions League Round of 16 Second Leg match between Manchester United and Sevilla FC at Old Trafford on March 13, 2018 in Manchester, United Kingdom. (Photo by Clive Mason/Getty Images)
Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Free)- HIT
Another veteran striker that Manchester United took a risk on, this one went far better.
Ibra found the net 29 times in 53 appearances for the Red Devils, as well as providing 10 assists even as his career began to enter his twilight years. Departing after 2 years at the club, his goals are still struggling to be replaced.
2017-18: £148m
Romelu Lukaku (£76.23m) – MISS
On the face of it, a record of 55 goal contributions in 96 games is perfectly acceptable, but the Manchester United faithful and Lukaku never really saw eye to eye. Ridiculed over his first touch and his size, he showed his true ability at Inter Milan, though he has regressed again at Chelsea.
Nemanja Matic (£40.23m) – HIT
Somehow still the best defensive midfielder Manchester United have even five years on, Matic is a shadow of his former self. However, when signed from Chelsea he remained a top-class defensive midfielder for at least his first season in Red.
While £40m was a hefty fee, he has certainly been more value for money than others in the list.
Victor Lindelof (£31.5m) – MISS
Has never come across as a first-choice defender for a side with title aspirations, and was dropped down the pecking order last summer when Raphael Varane arrived. Has improved season upon season since arrival but still flatters to deceive.
Victor Lindelof of Manchester United is tackled by Patrick Bamford of Leeds United during the Premier League match between Leeds United and Manchester United at Elland Road (Photo by Jon Super – Pool/Getty Images).
Alexis Sanchez (Swap)- MISS
A lose-lose for all parties, the only positive from the Mkhitaryan/Sanchez swap was that Arsenal got as bad a deal as the Red Devils. Sanchez only managed 45 appearances in all competitions after the January switch, registering 5 goals and 9 assists before he was quietly shipped off to Inter Milan.
2018-19: £74.4m
Fred (£53.1m) – MISS
Fred still playing a key role in Manchester United’s midfield is more down to the lack of alternatives rather than his own ability. A hard-worker, he has certainly improved since he joined the club, but he is still far from the answer to the problems that the Red Devils face. However, he still has time to change that.
Diogo Dalot (£19.8m) – MISS
Another that, like Fred, has time to reconstruct the narrative around him, Dalot has not managed to impress many since moving to Old Trafford as a youngster. Needs a run of games under the incoming new boss to prove that he is good enough to start for the Red Devils.
2019-20: £201.1m
Harry Maguire (£78.3m) – MISS
Good for United in patches, Maguire’s performances have dropped significantly this season to the point where even as Manchester captain his future looks uncertain. Uncomfortable in a high line, something that Ten Hag is likely to want to implement, he is unlikely to prove his doubters wrong any time soon.
Bruno Fernandes (£56.7m) – HIT
The one shining light at Manchester United in recent years, Bruno Fernandes hit the ground running after his January move from Sporting Lisbon, and despite a small drop off in form under Rangnick remains one of the club’s key assets.
Aaron Wan-Bissaka (49.5m) – MISS
A dinosaur in the age of the attacking fullback, Wan-Bissaka has often been criticised for his lack of ability going forwards despite his brilliance at the back. At £50 million, he seems well out of his depth as a conventional full-back in the modern game.
Dan James – (£16m) – MISS
James is another whose stay in Manchester was short-lived. The Welshman joined Manchester United over Leeds United, but failed to make an impact at Old Trafford and has already been shipped off to Leeds United, albeit for a profit.
Odeon Ighalo – (Loan) – MISS
99 Premier League minutes makes it hard to make a case for the loan signing being a success even if expectations were low, and it seemed more of an emergency signing than anything else. Far from the Manchester United standard.
2020-21: £68m
Donny Van De Beek (£35.1m) – MISS
Currently unable to get a game on loan at Everton, Van De Beek couldn’t buy a start at Manchester United either. Far from the answer that United were looking for to their midfield woes.
Alex Telles (£13.5m) – MISS
Is a clear step down from Luke Shaw and was even overlooked in favour of Diogo Dalot against Liverpool at Anfield. Not what the Red Devils thought they were getting.
PARIS, FRANCE – OCTOBER 20: Alex Telles of Manchester United in action during the UEFA Champions League Group H stage match between Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester United (Photo by Ash Donelon/Manchester United via Getty Images)
Amad Diallo (£19.17m) – N/A
The jury is still out on the youngster who joined from Atalanta in January 2021, with the 20-year-old currently out on loan at Rangers.
2021-22: £126m
Raphael Varane (£36m) – MISS
Varane joined to great acclaim but injury and poor form have seen him part of one of the worst Manchester United sides since the turn of the century. The World Cup winner has looked all at sea alongside Harry Maguire.
Jadon Sancho (£76.5m) – MISS
A miss so far, Sancho’s Manchester United career has shown signs of stuttering into life but brought in to be the finished product after two brilliant seasons with Borussia Dortmund, he is yet to replicate those heights.
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – OCTOBER 02: Jadon Sancho of Manchester United during the Premier League match between Manchester United and Everton at Old Trafford on October 02, 2021 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Visionhaus/Getty Images)
Cristiano Ronaldo (£13.5m) – HIT
The return of Ronaldo dominated the early part of the season at Old Trafford, and it is hard to see where they would be without him this campaign. His goals have singlehandedly helped them out of the Champions League group stage and also seen them pick up crucial Premier League points to avoid the season being even worse.
Now 37, he cannot have much left in the tank, but in commercial value and on the pitch value, he has already paid his transfer fee several times over.
The Dallas Mavericks listed Luka Dončić as questionable ahead of Game 3 of their first-round series against the Utah Jazz.
Luka Doncic is listed as questionable for the first time this series. He was listed as doubtful when he sat out the first two games. https://t.co/SGqEtMItxZ
Dončić missed the first two games of the series due to a calf injury he suffered during the Mavericks’ regular-season finale against the San Antonio Spurs. Although the Mavericks lost Game 1, 99-93, Jalen Brunson exploded for a career-high 41 points, and the Mavs knocked down a franchise-record 22 triples to take Game 2, 130-120, and in the process tied the series up 1-1.
With the series shifting to Utah for the next two games, the series’ momentum will go to whoever takes home-court advantage during Game 3. The news of Dončić possibly playing Game 3 on Wednesday bodes well for the Mavericks.
Dončić averaged 28.4 points, 9.1 rebounds, and 8.7 assists per game this season. Dončić finished his last playoff run putting up 35.7 points, 7.9 boards, and 10.3 dimes.
While such sweeping reform remains unlikely, Ali Noorani, president of the National Immigration Forum, argues there are still legislative avenues Biden could pursue: Last year, Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, which aims to streamline border processing and improve access to legal services.
“These types of reforms, paired with existing legislation that provides legal immigration pathways which address the growing labor shortage and permanent protections for Dreamers, farm workers, and Temporary Protected Status recipients, is smart policy and smart politics,” Noorani wrote in The Daily Beast.
The coming political storm over immigration
The Department of Homeland Security is bracing for up to 18,000 unauthorized migrants to cross the southern border per day once Title 42 is lifted next month. As midterms approach, the prospect of such an increase has prompted attacks from Republicans spotting an electoral opportunity and Democrats wary of an electoral liability.
In a highly publicized response to Title 42’s planned phaseout, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, sent unauthorized migrants on a bus from Texas to Washington, D.C., and ordered more-extensive searches of all commercial vehicles crossing from Mexico. Like many other members of his party, Abbott has sought to draw a direct connection from Biden’s immigration policy to the surge in U.S. drug overdoses.
Moderate Democrats are casting Title 42’s end as a logistics issue, joining Senate Republicans in introducing a bill to keep it in place until 60 days after the end of the Covid-19 public health emergency has been declared. Even Beto O’Rourke criticized Biden for lacking a plan to help border communities prepare for the increase in migration.
Electorally speaking, “You sort of have the worst of all possible worlds here,” Blitzer, the New Yorker writer, said. If the Biden administration had stuck to its plan to roll back Title 42 and systematically build up asylum capacity back in 2021, it might have enjoyed wider leeway to break with the previous administration’s policies. “Now, a year later,” he said, “that kind of honeymoon period, such as it was, is over.”
Another angle: The Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell argues that Democrats’ real political liability could be too little immigration. Last year, immigration fell by nearly 50 percent, which has deprived the tight labor market of much-needed workers. Democrats, Rampell writes, “have been so fixated on bad-faith right-wing attacks that they have missed the bigger, and much more serious, immigration-related liability: the millions of immigrants whose absence from the U.S. work force is putting upward pressure on inflation.”
Whatever immigration message Biden wants to push, he should start pushing it now, argues Glenn Altschuler, a professor of American studies at Cornell. “More than half — 55 percent — of Americans now disapprove of Biden’s handling of immigration,” he notes. “Turning their assessments around presents a daunting challenge. With the midterms less than seven months away, the clock is ticking.”
Do you have a point of view we missed? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com. Please note your name, age and location in your response, which may be included in the next newsletter.
Forget the silver linings playbook—it’s time for J.Law to dive into the parenting playbook!
Jennifer Lawrence and Cooke Maroney have welcomed their first child together, multiple sources tell E! News.
The Don’t Look Up actress and art dealer became parents earlier this year. On April 12, Lawrence and Maroney were seen taking a walk with their baby but have yet to speak publicly about the arrival.
“Every instinct in my body wants to protect their privacy for the rest of their lives, as much as I can,” she explained. “I don’t want anyone to feel welcome into their existence. And I feel like that just starts with not including them in this part of my work.”
Many entertainment executives, tired of playing catch-up to a Silicon Valley interloper, have been waiting for the comeuppance of Netflix. But this may not have been the way they hoped it would happen.
Netflix said this week that it lost more subscribers than it signed up in the first three months of the year, reversing a decade of steady growth. The company’s shares nose-dived 35 percent on Wednesday while it shed about $50 billion in market capitalization. The pain was shared across the industry as the stock of companies like Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount also declined.
Netflix blamed a number of issues, ranging from increased competition to its decision to drop all its subscribers in Russia because of the war in Ukraine. To entertainment executives and analysts, the moment felt decisive in the so-called streaming wars. After years of trying, they may see a chance to gain ground on their giant rival.
But Netflix’s stunning reversal also raised a number of questions that will have to be answered in the coming months as more traditional media companies race toward subscription businesses largely modeled after what Netflix created. Is there such a thing as too many streaming options? How many people are really willing to pay for them? And could this business be less profitable and far less reliable than what the industry has been doing for years?
“They switched from a sound business model to an unsound one,” the veteran entertainment executive Barry Diller said in an interview on Wednesday, referring to many legacy companies that have recently debuted streaming options. “I would guess today they’re saying, ‘Maybe trees don’t grow to the skies.’”
The media industry, worried about declining movie theater ticket sales and broadcast television ratings, has been reshaping itself on the fly to go all-in on streaming and compete with Netflix. Disney has invested billions. Discovery Inc. and WarnerMedia completed a merger this month to better compete with streaming behemoths. CNN even introduced a streaming version of itself, which has so far drawn underwhelming interest from subscribers.
But Netflix’s sudden problems show that those investments come with a lot of risk. The streaming market may still be a giant one over the long term, but the next few years could be difficult, said Rich Greenfield, an analyst at LightShed Partners and a longtime streaming booster.
“No matter what, it looks far less profitable, and that’s a problem for everybody,” he said. Fewer subscribers coupled with increased costs because of fiercer competition to create original content mean less profit for everyone.
Another concern, some analysts say, is the so-called churn rate. Consumers are growing warier of rising prices for streaming services and becoming more likely to cancel a service when a favorite show comes to an end, said Kevin Westcott, vice chairman of the consulting firm Deloitte. According to Deloitte, 25 percent of U.S. customers have canceled a streaming service only to resubscribe to it within a year.
The Race to Rule Streaming TV
“They’re frustrated that they have to have so many subscriptions to get all the content they want,” Mr. Westcott said.
Netflix’s issues increase pressure on Disney, which will report subscriber numbers on May 11. If Disney’s figures fail to live up to expectations, the distress signals surrounding the streaming business will grow louder.
There was also fear among Hollywood talent agents on Wednesday that the Netflix gravy train could slow and that the company’s willingness to pay whatever it took for scripts and talent deals could vanish. The same went for producers. Netflix has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past five years in pursuit of Academy Awards. It has yet to nab a best picture Oscar, but its commitment to prestige filmmaking has been praised.
“The effect on us will be if the new reality forces them to cut back on their $17 billion-a-year programming budget,” said Michael Shamberg, whose four-part documentary on the Three Mile Island nuclear plant crisis will debut on Netflix next month. “As a producer, I always think of them as a first stop for pitching original ideas. If their subscriber growth levels off and it forces them to cut back on programming, will they stop taking risks on innovative TV shows and Oscar films?”
Netflix acknowledged that ferocious competition was partly a reason that growth had stalled. The company used to say its primary competition was not from other streaming services but from diversions like sleep and reading.
Now there is a question about whether Netflix’s original content is strong enough to set it apart, as even deeper-pocketed companies like Apple and Amazon continue to increase their spending on critically acclaimed shows like “Severance,” which is carried on Apple TV+, and the upcoming first season of a “Lord of the Rings” prequel, for which Amazon is said to be spending more than $450 million.
“The reality is with so much alternative content out there, where is the new stuff that is just crushing it? Where are the new franchises?” asked Mr. Greenfield, the analyst. He noted that popular shows like “Ozark,” “Stranger Things” and “The Crown” would soon be ending their runs.
Indeed, interest in Netflix’s vast library has been showing signs of plateauing.
“For every single title on the Netflix catalog, the demand is pretty much flat,” said Alejandro Rojas, the vice president of applied analytics at Parrot Analytics, a research firm. “The catalog for HBO Max and Disney+ is growing double digits. That’s a big difference.”
Netflix’s performance could also cause rivals to reconsider their own international expansion plans, potentially making more targeted efforts overseas. Netflix’s subscriptions declined not just in the United States and Canada but also in Europe and Latin America.
“Netflix has thrown the kitchen sink at this,” the industry analyst Michael Nathanson said. “They were a first mover, they spent a ton on content, and they are making more localized content. They’ve done the right things, and yet they’ve hit a wall.”
Netflix executives, normally self-assured, seemed notably unsteady on Tuesday, when the first-quarter results were released. The co-chief executive Reed Hastings, who once swore there would never be ads on Netflix, said the company would consider introducing a lower-priced, advertising-supported tier in the next year or two. Netflix also said it would crack down on password sharing, a practice that in the past it said it had no problem with.
“We’ve been thinking about that for a couple of years, but when we were growing fast it wasn’t a high priority to work on,” Mr. Hastings said. “And now, we’re working superhard on it.”
Netflix has no advertising sales experience, while rivals like Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount have vast advertising infrastructure. And the password crackdown led some analysts to wonder whether Netflix has already reached market saturation in the United States.
Mr. Hastings tried to reassure everyone that Netflix had been through tough times before and that it would solve its problems. He said the company was now “superfocused” on “getting back into our investors’ good graces.”
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
