spoke about combining the oil giants after the pandemic shook the world last year, according to people familiar with the talks, testing the waters for what could be one of the largest corporate mergers ever.
Chevron Chief Executive
Mike Wirth
and Exxon CEO
Darren Woods
discussed a merger following the outbreak of the new coronavirus, which decimated oil and gas demand and put enormous financial strain on both companies, the people said. The discussions were described as preliminary and aren’t ongoing but could come back in the future, the people said.
Such a deal would reunite the two largest descendants of
John D. Rockefeller’s
Standard Oil monopoly, which was broken up by U.S. regulators in 1911, and reshape the oil industry.
A combined company’s market value could top $350 billion. Exxon has a market value of $190 billion, while Chevron’s is $164 billion. Together, they would likely form the world’s second largest oil company by market capitalization and production, producing about 7 million barrels of oil and gas a day, based on pre-pandemic levels, second only in both measures to Saudi Aramco.
But a merger of the two largest American oil companies could encounter regulatory and antitrust challenges under the Biden administration. President Biden has said climate change is one of the biggest crises the country faces. In October, he said he would push the country to “transition away from the oil industry.” He hasn’t been as vocal about antitrust matters, and the administration has yet to nominate the Justice Department’s head of that division.
One of the people familiar with the talks said the sides may have missed an opportunity to consummate the deal under former President
Donald Trump,
whose administration was seen as more friendly to the industry.
Darren Woods, CEO Exxon Mobil Corp., at an industry conference in 2018
Photo:
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News
A handful of sizable oil and gas deals were completed last year, including Chevron’s $5 billion takeover of Noble Energy Inc. and
ConocoPhillips
COP -2.63%
’ roughly $10 billion takeover of Concho Resources Inc., but nothing close to the scale of combining San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron and Irving, Texas-based Exxon.
Such a deal would significantly surpass in size the mega-oil-mergers of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which included the combination of Exxon and Mobil and Chevron and Texaco Inc.
It also could be the largest corporate tie-up ever, depending on its structure. That distinction currently belongs to the roughly $181 billion purchase of German conglomerate Mannesmann AG by Vodafone AirTouch Plc in 2000, according to Dealogic.
Many investors, analysts and energy executives have called for consolidation in the beleaguered oil-and-gas industry, arguing that cutting costs and improving operational efficiencies would help companies weather the pandemic-induced downturn and prepare for an uncertain future as many countries seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels to combat climate change.
In an interview discussing Chevron’s earnings Friday, Mr. Wirth, who like Mr. Woods also serves as his company’s board chairman, said that consolidation could make the industry more efficient. He was speaking generally and not about a possible Exxon-Chevron merger.
“As for larger scale things, it’s happened before,” Mr. Wirth said, referring to the 1990s and early-2000s megamergers. “Time will tell.”
Paul Sankey,
an independent analyst who hypothesized a merger of Chevron and Exxon in October, estimated at the time that the combined company would have a market capitalization of about $300 billion and $100 billion in debt. A merger would allow them to cut a combined $15 billion in administrative expenses and $10 billion in annual capital expenditures, he wrote.
An abundance of fossil fuels combined with advances in technology to harness wind and solar power has sent energy prices crashing around the world. WSJ explains how it all happened at once. Photo illustration: Carlos Waters/WSJ
Exxon was America’s most valuable company seven years ago, with a market value of more than $400 billion, nearly double Chevron’s. But Exxon has fallen from its heights following a series of strategic missteps, which were further exacerbated by the pandemic. It has been eclipsed as a profit engine by tech giants such as
Apple Inc.
AAPL -3.74%
and
Amazon.com Inc.,
AMZN -0.97%
in recent years and was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average last year for the first time since it was added as Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1928.
Exxon’s shares have fallen nearly 29% over the last year, while Chevron’s are down about 20%. Chevron briefly topped Exxon in market capitalization in the fall.
Exxon endured one of its worst financial performances ever in 2020. It is expected to report a fourth consecutive quarterly loss for the first time in modern history on Tuesday and already has posted more than $2 billion in losses through the first three quarters of 2020.
Chevron also has struggled, reporting nearly $5.5 billion in 2020 losses Friday. But investors have expressed more faith in Chevron because it entered the downturn with a stronger balance sheet—in part because it walked away from its $33 billion bid to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. before the pandemic, having been outbid by
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
OXY -4.25%
in 2019.
Exxon has about $69 billion in debt as of September, while Chevron has around $35 billion, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Some investors have grown increasingly concerned about Exxon’s direction under Mr. Woods as the company faces a rapidly changing energy industry and growing global consciousness about climate change. Some are also worried that Exxon may have to cut its hefty dividend, which costs it about $15 billion annually, due to its high debt levels. Many individual investors count on the payments as a source of income.
Mr. Woods embarked on an ambitious plan in 2018 to spend $230 billion to pump an additional one million barrels of oil and gas a day by 2025. But before the pandemic, production was up only slightly and Exxon’s financial flexibility was diminished. In November, Exxon retreated from the plan and said it would cut billions of dollars from its capital spending every year through 2025 and focus on investing in only the most promising assets.
Newsletter Sign-up
Deals Alert
Major news in the world of deals and deal-makers.
Meanwhile, the company’s woes have helped draw the attention of activist investors. One of them, Engine No. 1 LLC, has argued that the company should focus more on investments in clean energy while cutting costs elsewhere to preserve its dividend. The firm nominated four directors to Exxon’s board Wednesday and called for it to make strategic changes to its business plan.
Exxon also has been in talks with another activist, D.E. Shaw Group, and is preparing to announce one or more new board members, additional spending cuts and investments in new technologies to help it reduce its carbon emissions.
Rivals such as
BP
BP -2.80%
PLC and
Royal Dutch Shell
RDS.A -3.53%
PLC have embarked on bold strategies to remake their business as regulatory and investor pressure to reduce carbon emissions mounts. Both have said they will invest heavily in renewable energy—a strategy that their investors so far haven’t rewarded.
Exxon and Chevron haven’t invested substantially in renewables, instead choosing to double down on oil and gas. Both companies have argued that the world will need vast amounts of fossil fuels for decades to come, and that they can capitalize on current underinvestment in oil production.
Write to Christopher M. Matthews at christopher.matthews@wsj.com, Emily Glazer at emily.glazer@wsj.com and Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com
Officials from Ohio said recently that 60% of nursing-home staff so far haven’t elected to take the vaccine. In New York,
Gov. Andrew Cuomo
said this month that state officials expect 30% of health-care workers offered the vaccine will ultimately turn it down. Two-thirds of the staff at a Florida hospital refused the vaccine this month, leaving so many unused doses that the facility started giving away shots to the general public.
The hesitancy among health-care workers concerns public-health officials who expected America’s front-line workers to serve as a model for others.
“Please get vaccinated,”
Anthony Fauci,
who is serving as President Biden’s chief medical adviser for the Covid-19 pandemic, said in a video message to health-care providers. “It’s important to protect yourselves, to protect your family, but as important, symbolically, as health-care providers, to show confidence in the vaccine so that other people in this country follow suit.”
In a survey of 1,563 respondents conducted in January by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation, 79% of U.S. adults who haven’t yet been vaccinated say they would be likely to turn to a doctor, nurse or other health-care provider when deciding whether to get a vaccination.
Meanwhile, 28% of 128 health-care workers in the Kaiser survey said they want to wait and see how the vaccine is working for other people before getting it themselves. While they weren’t the most resistant group the foundation studied, their outsize influence over whether members of the general public would choose to get the vaccine concerns public-health officials.
Surveys of vaccine skepticism of broader populations have shown that people have become less hesitant as they see others vaccinated.
Some health-care workers say they’ve passed up the shot for altruistic reasons, believing that others should get it first. Several health-care systems said they have struggled to persuade female employees to get vaccinated due to a lack of data about the vaccines’ impact on pregnancy. Other health-care workers say while they want to encourage others to get vaccinated, when it comes to their own health, they are still wary.
“As I was getting my first shot, I asked the two nurses who were administering it to me how they felt when they got the shot. And they were on the side of waiting. That scared me a little bit, but I went through with it,” said
Charles Smith II,
chief financial officer at Vibrant Health in Kansas City, Kan.
At the system of clinics where Mr. Smith works, about 30% of the staff have decided against getting the vaccine to this point, according to Vibrant Health’s chief executive,
Patrick Sallee.
Mr. Smith said he felt uncomfortable with the speed of the process and the lack of long-term data, but news that a more highly transmissible virus variant was spreading made him take the leap. “There is an expectation for the health industry to lead other industries to say this thing is safe and lead by example,” he said. “I feel like I’m shaking the dice, really.”
Mr. Smith, CFO at a health-clinic system, and Dr. Jackson-Smith, a dentist, felt reluctant about a Covid-19 vaccine but decided to lead by example and get the shot.
Photo:
Katie Currid for The Wall Street Journal
Mr. Smith’s wife, Aniika Jackson-Smith, a dentist, said she also hesitated to get a vaccine because she doesn’t feel enough is known about their long-term effects. She said she finally decided to make an appointment to get the first shot in late January because she feels a responsibility as a health-care provider not to discourage others from getting it.
“My mind isn’t really changed,” she said. “But I guess in order for us to get past this, people are just going to have to take the vaccine or we’ll just be here forever.”
Heidi Arthur,
chief campaign development officer at the Ad Council, which has been running a large-scale public-service education effort about the Covid-19 vaccines, said getting health-care workers on board wasn’t originally part of the plan.
“It was surprising, the level of hesitancy,” she said.
Covid-19 Vaccine’s Last Mile
Instead of health-care workers lining up, the Ad Council found themselves pulling together a diverse group of leaders within the industry, including Dr. Fauci, to educate other health-care workers about the vaccines and address their concerns.
For Susan Izzo, an adult nurse practitioner in Connecticut, her initial hesitancy was because she felt her patients deserved the vaccine before her. Ultimately, her patients persuaded her to get the shots, she said, so that she could be healthy to protect them.
“I didn’t feel like it was my turn, even though as a health-care worker it is my turn. I would have gladly given up my vaccine to my 55-year-old patient who just had a lung transplant,” she said.
Deborah Burger,
a president at National Nurses United, the largest nurses’ union in the U.S., said many nurses felt information about vaccines that came out during the Trump administration was politicized and wanted to learn more so they could decide for themselves whether it was safe. Education and more information, she said, is increasing uptake among nurses.
Dawn Allen,
vice president of patient services at Huron Regional Medical Center in South Dakota, said at first less than 50% of their workforce chose to be vaccinated. After sitting down with staff to answer their questions, particularly around concerns of infertility, she said they are up to 76% of staff choosing to be vaccinated over a two-week period.
Still, some nurses say they have no intention of getting vaccinated.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Should health-care workers be forced to take the vaccine? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.
Cleon Charles,
a traveling nurse who has been working in Covid-19 hot spots throughout the pandemic, said she would never get the vaccine and has discouraged her daughters and parents from getting it, despite having had Covid-19 herself.
She cited a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry, among other concerns, and the death of baseball legend Hank Aaron, who publicly received the Covid-19 vaccine in early January. Medical officials say the baseball legend died of natural causes, but his death has been taken up by antivaccination leaders, including
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
, who called the death “part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of #COVID #vaccines,” on Twitter.
“I don’t want it,” Ms. Charles said. “I’ll take my chances and my vitamins.”
The rally in Washington’s Ellipse that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was arranged and funded by a small group including a top Trump campaign fundraiser and donor facilitated by far-right show host
Alex Jones.
Mr. Jones personally pledged more than $50,000 in seed money for a planned Jan. 6 event in exchange for a guaranteed “top speaking slot of his choice,” according to a funding document outlining a deal between his company and an early organizer for the event.
Mr. Jones also helped arrange for
Julie Jenkins Fancelli,
a prominent donor to the Trump campaign and heiress to the Publix Super Markets Inc. chain, to commit about $300,000 through a top fundraising official for former President
Donald Trump’s
2020 campaign, according to organizers. Her money paid for the lion’s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse where Mr. Trump spoke.
Another far-right activist and leader of the “Stop the Steal” movement,
Ali Alexander,
helped coordinate planning with
Caroline Wren,
a fundraising official who was paid by the Trump campaign for much of 2020 and who was tapped by Ms. Fancelli to organize and fund an event on her behalf, organizers said. On social media, Mr. Alexander had targeted Jan. 6 as a key date for supporters to gather in Washington to contest the 2020-election certification results. The week of the rally, he tweeted a flyer for the event saying: “DC becomes FORT TRUMP starting tomorrow on my orders!”
Alex Jones addressed protesters on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.
Photo:
Jon Cherry/Getty Images
The Ellipse rally, at which President Trump urged supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, was lawful and nonviolent. But it served as a jumping-off point for many supporters to head to the Capitol. Mr. Trump has been impeached by the Democrat-led House of Representatives, accused of inciting a mob to storm the Capitol with remarks urging supporters to “fight like hell.”
Few details about the funding and organization of the Ellipse event have previously been revealed. Mr. Jones claimed in a video that he paid for a portion of the event but didn’t offer details.
Messrs. Jones and Alexander had been active in the weeks before the event, calling on supporters to oppose the election results and go to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Mr. Alexander, for instance, tweeted on Dec. 30 about the scheduled Jan. 6 count for lawmakers to certify the Electoral College vote at the Capitol, writing: “If they do this, everyone can guess what me and 500,000 others will do to that building.”
Julie Jenkins Fancelli, shown in 2019, donated more than $980,000 in the 2020 election cycle to a joint account for the Trump campaign and Republican Party, records show.
Photo:
Barry Friedman/LKLND NOW
A hodgepodge of different pro-Trump groups were planning various events on Jan. 6. Several of them, led by the pro-Trump Women for America First, helped coordinate the Ellipse event; another group splintered off to lead a rally the night before, at which Mr. Jones ended up speaking, and the group organized by Mr. Alexander planned a protest outside the Capitol building.
Mr. Jones, who has publicized discredited conspiracy theories, has hosted leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two extremist groups prominent at the riot, on his popular radio and internet video shows.
Mr. Jones declined to respond to requests for comment. In a statement, Mr. Alexander said Stop the Steal’s motto is “peaceful but rowdy,” that the violence at the Capitol wasn’t planned by his group and said none of his rhetoric incited violence. Messrs. Alexander and Jones said on Mr. Jones’s show that they tried to prevent protesters from entering the Capitol and sought to de-escalate the riot. Neither has been accused of wrongdoing.
A spokesman for the Trump campaign said it had no role in financing or organizing the Ellipse event and didn’t direct former staffers to do so. A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump declined to comment. At least five former Trump campaign staffers besides Ms. Wren assisted on the logistics of the Jan. 6 rally, according to the permit and Federal Election Commission records.
Ali Alexander, activist and leader of the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, helped coordinate planning of the Ellipse rally.
Photo:
carlos barria/Reuters
Starting in mid-December, Mr. Alexander began publicizing plans “to march and peacefully occupy DC with #StopTheSteal,” according to organizers and a message saved by
Devin Burghart,
who directs an organization that tracks extremist groups. Mr. Trump on Dec. 19 urged supporters through Twitter to come for Jan. 6 protests that he said would be “wild.”
Mr. Alexander created a website called WildProtest.com, writing: “We the People must take to the US Capitol lawn and steps and tell Congress #DoNotCertify on #JAN6!” He planned and publicized a rally to take place on the Capitol grounds that day. The website was taken offline after the riot.
A representative of Women for America First had applied for a permit to host a separate rally just after the inauguration in January, but the group rescheduled for Jan. 6 after the Dec. 19 Trump tweet, organizers said.
Women for America First’s permit for the Ellipse rally listed several names and positions, including Ms. Wren as “VIP coordinator.” In the 2020 election cycle, the Trump campaign and a joint GOP committee paid Ms. Wren and her fundraising consulting firm $730,000, according to FEC records.
The Ellipse rally, during which Donald Trump spoke, was lawful and nonviolent, but it served as a jumping-off point for his supporters to head to the Capitol.
Photo:
Shawn Thew/Bloomberg News
Ms. Wren had been tapped to handle funding by Ms. Fancelli, the major donor to the Ellipse event, according to organizers. Ms. Fancelli, who didn’t respond to several requests for comment, donated more than $980,000 in the 2020 election cycle to a joint account for the Trump campaign and Republican Party, records show.
Ms. Fancelli, daughter of the Publix Super Markets founder, contacted Mr. Jones and offered to contribute to a Jan. 6 event, organizers said. Mr. Jones connected her to an organizer through Ms. Wren, who handled the funding as she helped coordinate the logistics of a rally with Women for America First. A Publix spokeswoman said Ms. Fancelli isn’t involved in the company’s business operations and doesn’t “represent the company in any way.”
The Ellipse setup cost roughly $500,000, with a concert stage, a $100,000 grass covering and thousands of feet of security structures.
Ms. Wren played a central role in bringing together the disparate group of activists planning events on Jan. 6. She suggested to Mr. Alexander that he reschedule his Capitol rally to 1 p.m. and put into place a list of about 30 potential speakers, including Messrs. Alexander and Jones, who had been listed on websites as associated with the day’s events, according to organizers.
In a statement, Ms. Wren said her role for the event “was to assist many others in providing and arranging for a professionally produced event at the Ellipse.”
The involvement of Messrs. Jones and Alexander triggered debate among the organizers.
Amy Kremer,
chairwoman of Women for America First, said in a statement: “We were concerned because there was an aggressive push to have fringe participation in our event.”
In text messages Ms. Wren sent to another organizer and reviewed by the Journal, Ms. Wren defended Mr. Jones. “I promise he’s actually WAY nicer than he comes off…I’m hoping you’ll [sic] can become besties,” Ms. Wren wrote.
Ms. Wren’s spokesman said the message is “evidence of Ms. Wren assisting in executing an event while also having to diplomatically get people with different agendas on the same page.”
None of the groups obtained a march permit, though Women for America First called the event “March to Save America Rally” and Mr. Alexander’s Stop the Steal promoted a march to the Capitol online.
The Women for America First Ellipse permit said the group wouldn’t conduct a march but noted: “Some participants may leave to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count.”
Kylie Kremer,
co-founder of Women for America First, said the group didn’t file for a march permit because it went against Covid-19 guidelines and a march wasn’t in its plans.
When Mr. Trump met on Jan. 4 with former campaign adviser
Katrina Pierson,
who had begun working with rally organizers, he said he wanted to be joined primarily by lawmakers assisting his efforts to block electoral votes from being counted and members of his own family, aides said.
Messrs. Alexander and Jones spoke instead at a Jan. 5 rally organized by the Eighty Percent Coalition, a group founded by
Cindy Chafian,
an early organizer of the Jan. 6 event who struck the initial deal with Mr. Jones.
She said she was willing to work with Mr. Jones because “it’s unreasonable to expect to agree with everything a group or person does.”
Mr. Jones’s seed money in the end was used for that Jan. 5 rally, for which he ultimately paid about $96,000, an organizer said. In his speech at that event, Mr. Jones said: “I don’t know how all this is going to end but if they want to fight, they better believe they’ve got one.”
The next day, Ms. Wren personally escorted Mr. Jones and Mr. Alexander off the Ellipse grounds before the two men marched to the U.S. Capitol, according to organizers. She had provided them and many others VIP passes that morning for Mr. Trump’s speech.
Messrs. Alexander and Jones were at the Capitol grounds together on Jan. 6, and Mr. Jones supported protesters with a bullhorn, video footage shows. He urged them to be peaceful and proceed to the area on the Capitol grounds where Mr. Alexander had secured a demonstration permit, according to Mr. Alexander and the footage.
Write to Shalini Ramachandran at shalini.ramachandran@wsj.com, Alexandra Berzon at alexandra.berzon@wsj.com and Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com
U.S. stock futures dropped, putting Wall Street on course to extend losses amid investor concerns about a slowing economic rebound and froth in markets, exemplified by the wild trading in retailer
GameStop.
Futures tied to the S&P 500 fell 0.2% after the benchmark stocks gauge posted its biggest two-day decline since October. Contracts for the Nasdaq-100 declined 0.8%, after earnings from several technology giants including
Apple
underwhelmed investors late Wednesday. Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has fallen for five-consecutive days in its longest losing streak since February, were roughly flat.
The stumble in stocks follows a strong start to the year that some investors say had pushed share prices beyond levels justified by corporate fundamentals. The selloff has taken place amid wild swings in individual stocks including GameStop and
AMC Entertainment,
fueled by a battle between day traders and hedge-fund professionals.
“There is some over-excitement in the market,” said
Olaf van den Heuvel,
chief investment officer for
Aegon
Asset Management in the Netherlands, pointing to the surge in GameStop shares as one example. “It was bubble territory.”
Individual stocks remained volatile ahead of the bell in New York. GameStop shares jumped 28%, having rocketed 135% Wednesday. AMC clawed back earlier losses to climb 6.1%, extending Wednesday’s gains of more than 300%.
The stumble in stocks has taken place amid wild swings in individual shares, including GameStop and AMC Entertainment.
Photo:
Courtney Crow/Associated Press
The slow vaccine rollout and Covid-19 restrictions in major economies have prompted investors to take some money off the table, Mr. van den Heuvel added. He said Aegon would likely view the selloff as a chance to buy risky assets when markets settle down.
Technology stocks dropped ahead of the bell in New York. Shares of Apple fell 2.9% after the iPhone maker reported its most profitable three months on record but didn’t provide specific revenue guidance for the current quarter.
Tesla dropped 6.1% after the electric-vehicle maker—whose shares have soared in recent months—posted its first full-year profit but missed Wall Street’s expectations.
Facebook,
which posted record net income but warned that uncertainty from regulatory probes and ad-targeting limits could create headwinds, fell 0.8% in premarket trading.
In one sign of rising risk aversion, the yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note dropped below 1% for the first time since Jan. 6, before climbing back to 1.008%, according to
Tradeweb.
Bond yields fall as prices rise. Falling yields are often an indicator that investors see the economic outlook weakening.
The dollar strengthened against various currencies including the Australian dollar and the Korean won. The WSJ Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against a basket of other currencies, rose 0.2%.
Comcast,
American Airlines
and
Mastercard
are scheduled to publish results before markets open. Investors will also parse data on jobless claims—due to be published at 8:30 a.m. ET and expected to show that the number of workers seeking benefits declined last week—for fresh clues about how the economy is weathering the pandemic.
The Federal Reserve maintained its easy money policies Wednesday, saying that business activity has softened with the resurgence of Covid-19 cases.
“Any removal of fiscal stimulus any time soon could lead to a falter in the recovery,” said
Mary Nicola,
a portfolio manager for PineBridge Investments.
The selloff in U.S. stocks extended overseas. The pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 fell 0.7%, led lower by shares of oil-and-gas and financial companies.
Shares in several heavily-shorted European stocks that shot up Wednesday, when the short squeeze spread beyond the U.S., came under pressure. Commercial real-estate firm
Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield
lost 2.4% and German drugmaker
Evotec
fell 4%.
“It is nerve-racking,” said
Remi Olu-Pitan,
a fund manager at Schroders, referring to the big moves in stock prices fueled by day traders swapping tips online. She said the volatility likely induced some professional investors, including those caught with loss-making short positions, to take money off the table, weighing on broader markets.
“You will see more violent pullbacks,” Ms. Olu-Pitan said. “There are parts of the market that are in a bubble.”
Among other individual movers,
Prudential
dropped 7.5% after the insurer said it was weighing an equity offering and would separate off its Jackson National arm in the U.S. Diageo gained 4.8%, as analysts cheered strong first-half sales in North America by the alcohol producer.
Markets broadly retreated in Asia. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng dropped 2.6%, the Shanghai Composite Index fell 1.9% and Japan’s Nikkei 225 declined 1.5%. Container-shipping giant Cosco Shipping led losses in mainland China, sliding 10%.
In a sign of jitters in Chinese markets, money-market rates continued to rise. The one-week Shanghai interbank offered rate rose 0.012 percentage point to 2.981%, its highest since 2015, according to FactSet.
Short-term borrowing costs have risen in recent days as the People’s Bank of China unexpectedly drained funds from the financial system. Earlier this week, a major business newspaper also published remarks by
Ma Jun,
an adviser to the central bank, who warned of asset bubbles emerging due to loose monetary policy.
Tai Hui,
chief Asia market strategist at J.P. Morgan Asset Management, said new pockets of coronavirus outbreaks in China had also dented investor sentiment.
Write to Joe Wallace at Joe.Wallace@wsj.com and Chong Koh Ping at chong.kohping@wsj.com
The Biden administration has imposed a temporary freeze on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as it reviews billions of dollars in weapons transactions approved by former President
Donald Trump,
according to U.S. officials.
The review, the officials said, includes the sale of precision-guided munitions to Riyadh as well as top-line F-35 fighters to Abu Dhabi, a deal that Washington approved as part of the Abraham Accords, in which the Emirates established diplomatic relations with Israel.
U.S. officials said it isn’t unusual for a new administration to review arms sales approved by a predecessor, and that despite the pause, many of the transactions are likely to ultimately go forward.
But in line with campaign pledges made by President
Biden,
Washington is seeking to ensure that American weapons aren’t used to further the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, where its conflict with the Iranian-aligned Houthis has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and widespread hunger.
Mr. Biden “has made clear that we will end our support for the military campaign led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and I think we will work on that in very short order,” Secretary of State
Antony Blinken
said at his confirmation hearing last week. Washington will continue to help defend the Saudis against Houthi attacks, Mr. Blinken said.
Officials at the Saudi and Emirati embassies in Washington didn’t immediately comment on the developments.
Congress and the U.S. defense industry were informed of the review in recent days, one U.S. official said. It is unclear how long the review will last.
Officials couldn’t offer a precise dollar figure for the weapons sales under review. But the review, they said, includes a $23 billion deal between Washington and the Emirates for the F-35 jet fighters, Reaper drones and various munitions that was finalized on Mr. Trump’s last full day in office, according to a statement on the website of the UAE’s Washington embassy.
It also includes billions in contracts with Riyadh, including a deal for $290 million in precision-guided munitions that the U.S. government approved in late December.
“The (State) Department is temporarily pausing the implementation of some pending U.S. defense transfers and sales under Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review,” a department spokesman said.
Calling it “a routine administrative action,” the spokesman said the review “demonstrates the administration’s commitment to transparency and good governance, as well as ensuring U.S. arms sales meet our strategic objectives of building stronger, interoperable, and more capable security partners.”
Write to Warren P. Strobel at Warren.Strobel@wsj.com
AT&T Inc. booked a $15.5 billion charge on its pay-television business, reflecting the damage cord-cutting has taken on its DirecTV satellite unit even as the company’s HBO Max streaming service’s growth ramped up.
The write-down created a fourth-quarter loss as the media-and-telecommunications giant weighs the potential sale of its pay-TV assets and executives focus their investments on newer technologies. The company reported quarterly revenue declines in its legacy-video and WarnerMedia units, offsetting gains in its core wireless-phone division.
Executives called the noncash accounting charge a sign of the pay-TV unit’s aging status as the Dallas company promotes an internet-streaming model that gives its content-production business a direct line to viewers.
“Our biggest and single-most important bet is HBO Max,” Chief Executive John Stankey said on a conference call Wednesday. Executives plan to expand the service’s footprint in other countries this year and launch an advertising-supported version in the second quarter.
Overall, AT&T reported a fourth-quarter loss of $13.89 billion, or $1.95 a share, compared with a profit of $2.39 billion, or 33 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue fell 2.4% to $45.7 billion.
Here’s what we’re watching ahead of Wednesday’s opening bell.
—U.S. stock futures slipped, as investors awaited a bumper day of major earnings reports and a meeting of the Federal Reserve.
S&P 500 futures were down 1.1%, while futures tied to the technology-heavy Nasdaq-100 edged down 0.7%. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures fell 1.1%.
What’s Coming Up
—Earnings updates expected:
Tesla,
TSLA -0.71%
Apple
AAPL -0.22%
and
Facebook
FB -2.39%
are due after the close. The electric-car maker is expected to record its first full-year profit.
The Federal Reserve releases a policy statement at 2 p.m. and Chairman Jerome Powell holds a press conference at 2:30 p.m.
Market Movers to Watch
—And then there’s GameStop. Its stock popped again ahead of the bell, soaring 73% in wildly volatile trading. CNBC reported that Melvin Capital, a hedge fund that has posted big losses so far this year in part because of a wager against the videogame retailer’s stock, had closed out its short position on Tuesday afternoon. The report caused a stir on the online platform Reddit—popular among day traders waging a battle against hedge-fund short-sellers—where some members wrote that it was an attempt to pull
GameStop
GME 109.79%
‘s share price back down. And
Elon Musk
weighed in on the stock again last night with a tweet, “Gamestonk!!“
—The show must go on: Another heavily shorted stock, movie-theater operator
AMC Entertainment Holdings,
AMC 133.87%
saw its shares vault more than 350% higher premarket.
—Headphone maker
Koss
KOSS 72.20%
has also joined the party, and its shares jumped 109% premarket.
—
Bed Bath & Beyond
BBBY 28.21%
resumed its upward trajectory, up 20% ahead of the bell. Online traders point to an early 2020 change in management and the fact that the company is buying back shares as signs that the share price will continue to increase.
—
Microsoft
MSFT 1.44%
shares are up 2.1% premarket. The software giant’s profit and sales jumped, propelled by pandemic-fueled demand for videogaming and accelerated adoption of its cloud-computing services.
—
Boeing
BA -4.46%
shares fell 3.3% premarket after the plane maker reported its biggest-ever annual loss and took a huge financial hit on its new 777X jetliner, reflecting the pandemic’s worsening toll.
—
Abbott Laboratories
ABT 1.12%
shares added 1.5% premarket after it logged hearty profit growth in the latest quarter as a surge in demand for its Covid-19 diagnostics services contributed to higher revenue.
—
Starbucks
SBUX -5.30%
slipped 3% premarket after the coffee chain reported that sales fell during the holiday quarter but showed signs of recovery, particularly in China. Its operating chief
Roz Brewer
is leaving to become CEO of
Walgreens
WBA 6.21%
Boots Alliance, where she’ll be the only Black woman leading a Fortune 500 company. Walgreens shares climbed 5%.
A Walgreens store in Tomball, Texas, Jan. 16, 2021.
Photo:
Jeff Lautenberger for The Wall Street Journal
—
AT&T
T -1.11%
shares slipped 1.3% premarket after it reported a fourth-quarter loss as it booked a $15.5 billion charge on its pay-TV business.
—Chip maker
Texas Instruments
TXN -2.81%
‘s shares slipped 1.7% premarket even though quarterly results and outlook both topped Wall Street estimates after Tuesday’s close.
Market Fact
Retail order flows have reached 20% of the U.S. stock market’s total, according to
UBS
research, twice what they were in 2010.
Chart of the Day
GameStop shares have become a favorite of online traders who are seeking to make money from buying options.
Must Reads Since You Went to Bed
Online Traders Helped Some Unlikely Stocks Soar
Jack Ma’s Ant Plans Major Revamp in Response to Chinese Pressure
Renewed Demand for Treasurys Quells Fears of Rising Rates—for Now
Goldman CEO David Solomon Takes $10 Million Pay Cut for 1MDB Scandal
Biden’s Candidate for SEC Chairman Is Expected to Be Tough
Scientists are settling on a road map that can help critical sectors of the economy safely conduct business, from meatpacking plants to financial services, despite the pandemic’s continued spread.
After nearly a year of study, the lessons include: Mask-wearing, worker pods and good air flow are much more important than surface cleaning, temperature checks and plexiglass barriers in places like offices and restaurants. And more public-health experts now advocate wide use of cheap, rapid tests to detect cases quickly, in part because many scientists now think more than 50% of infections are transmitted by people without symptoms.
The playbook comes after months of investigations on how the coronavirus spreads and affects the body. Scientists combined that with knowledge gained from years of experience managing occupational-health hazards in high-risk workplaces, such as factories and chemical plants, where tiny airborne pollutants can build up and cause harm. They say different types of workplaces—taking into account the types of interactions workers have—need slightly different protocols.
The safety measures have taken on new urgency in recent weeks as new infections, hospitalizations and deaths rise across the U.S. and Europe, and potentially more-transmissible variants of the virus spread around the globe. This phase of the pandemic is prompting a new wave of stay-at-home orders, closures and travel restrictions, important first steps to curbing contagion. Infection-prevention specialists say known strategies for stemming spread should continue to work against the new variants, but that increased adherence is even more important.
Vaccines are rolling out, but slowly, and access will be limited mostly to high-priority groups for some time.
“We have to still deal with ‘the right now.’ We’ve zeroed in on this set of controls that we know work,” said
Joseph Allen,
director of the Healthy Buildings Program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Over the past year, the lack of consistent and cohesive messaging among scientists and lawmakers has seeded confusion over what makes up risky behavior, what activities should be avoided and why. That is beginning to change as consensus builds and scientists better understand the virus.
In the U.S., scientists at first advised people against wearing masks, in part because of shortages, while the idea of stay-at-home orders received severe pushback from some lawmakers. Early in the pandemic, testing was limited to people with symptoms, also partly due to shortages. That advice has shifted, but a year later, sufficient testing remains a critical issue.
London’s Regent Street was nearly empty last week.
Photo:
May James/SOPA Images /Zuma Press
Countries such as New Zealand and others in Asia adhered to a combination of basic mitigation strategies from the start—particularly masking, large-scale testing and lockdowns that broke transmission chains. They have tended to fare better than those that didn’t.
In one of his first moves, President
Biden
signed executive orders to require masks be worn on federal property and at airports and other transportation hubs. The administration said it is focusing on increasing the availability of vaccines, and also stressed the importance of widely available testing, which still lags in low-income and minority communities.
The current scientific playbook follows from two of the biggest research insights since the start of the pandemic. First, individuals who aren’t showing symptoms can transmit the virus. Infectious-disease experts worry most about this silent spread and say it is the reason the pandemic has been so hard to contain. While visibly sick people can pass on the virus, data cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 40% to 45% of those infected never develop symptoms at all. With the new viral variants that can transmit more readily, the potential for silent spread is even higher, infectious-disease experts said.
Secondly, researchers now know that tiny airborne particles known as aerosols play a role in the spread of Covid-19. These can linger in the air and travel beyond 6 feet.
An early hallmark of the pandemic response focused on the risk of transmission through large respiratory droplets that typically travel a few feet and then fall to the ground. Businesses rushed to buy plexiglass barriers, creating shortages.
The barriers can be good at preventing larger virus-containing droplets from landing on and infecting healthy individuals. They may offer some protection in shielding workers who have brief face-to-face interactions with many people throughout the workday, such as cashiers and receptionists, some occupational-health experts said.
Yet in settings like offices, restaurants or gyms, the role of the barriers is murkier, because activities like talking loudly and breathing deeply create aerosols that can waft on air currents and get around shields.
A Los Angeles Apparel employee added plexiglass to sewing stations in July.
Photo:
Sarah Reingewirtz/Orange County Register/Zuma Press
Outdoor diners at Eat At Joe’s restaurant in Redondo Beach, Calif., in December.
Photo:
patrick t. fallon/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
A gym in Milan in October.
Photo:
DANIEL DAL ZENNARO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Also, installing such barriers could affect airflow throughout the space, environmental-health experts said. It is possible they could limit proper ventilation, making things worse, they said.
“There seems to be an assumption that particles are going to get stopped by the barriers, which is simply not true,” said
Lisa Brosseau,
an industrial hygienist and research consultant for the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Airborne particles ferrying the virus “really distribute all over the place.”
The emphasis on intense surface cleaning has diminished as scientists have come to understand that indirect transmission through contaminated surfaces doesn’t play as critical a role in the spread of Covid-19 as they thought in the early days of the pandemic. In September, the CDC published sanitation guidelines for offices, workplaces, homes and schools that said that, for most surfaces, normal, routine cleaning should suffice, and that frequently touched objects, such as light switches and doorknobs, should be cleaned and disinfected.
“Sanitation is important in general always,” said
Deborah Roy,
president of the American Society of Safety Professionals. “The idea is we went overboard at the beginning because of the amount of unknowns. Now, we’re in a situation where we have more information.”
Temperature checks have become less popular among some employers because scientists now know that not all Covid-19 patients get fevers. One large study published online in November in the New England Journal of Medicine showed only 13% of Covid-19 patients reported a fever during the course of their illness.
Scientists now understand that brief encounters with an infected person can lead to spread, according to an October case study—an advance from earlier, when the rule of thumb was to avoid close contact for 15 consecutive minutes or longer. The report urged people to consider not just time and proximity in defining close contact with a Covid case, but also ventilation, crowding and a person’s likelihood of generating aerosols. Following the report, the CDC changed its definition of close contact to a total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period.
A flight attendant showed an air filter on LATAM airlines in Bogota in August.
Photo:
juan barreto/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Fresh air and effective filters indoors are important because they can remove virus particles before they have time to infect.
Masks offer a similar benefit, by lowering the amount of particles that infected individuals emit. Some scientists say there could be a benefit to doubling up on masks, as a second layer may improve both filtration and fit, so long as the masks are worn correctly.
A study published in October found that in countries where mask wearing was the norm or where governments put in place mask mandates, coronavirus mortality rates grew much more slowly than in countries without such measures. This fall, the CDC said that masks also offer some personal protection by reducing a wearer’s exposure to infected particles.
As the weather gets colder and people head indoors, the risk of catching Covid-19 is rising. WSJ explains why air ventilation and filtration are one of our biggest defenses against the coronavirus this winter. Illustration: Nick Collingwood/WSJ
The combination of airborne particles and personal interactions, even among people who don’t feel ill, can turn wedding receptions, plane rides and choir practices into superspreading, potentially deadly events.
“For Covid, those two factors—asymptomatic spread and aerosolization—is what made mask-wearing so essential,” said
Megan Ranney,
emergency physician and assistant dean at Brown University.
Lessons can be gleaned from an outbreak at a Canadian spin studio last fall. The operators of the SPINCO studio in Hamilton, Ontario, had many public-health measures in place, including limiting the number of bikes in each class and screening staff and attendees with a questionnaire about topics including symptoms and travel. Rooms were sanitized within 30 minutes of a completed class, and towels were laundered, according to a statement provided last fall by
Elizabeth Richardson,
medical officer of health for the city of Hamilton.
Masks were also required before and after workout classes, Dr. Richardson said.
In total, 54 people who attended workouts over a span of several classes became infected. Another 31 cases were tied to the outbreak after spin-class attendees who contracted the virus then passed it on. The spin studio temporarily shut down following the outbreak and later reopened. It is currently not offering classes due to local regulations that mandated the closure of all gyms and fitness centers amid rising Covid-19 cases in the area.
In a November statement following the outbreak,
Michelle August,
founder of SPINCO, said that the company has “always put safety first and [has] exceeded all recommended guidelines from public health throughout” the pandemic. She said SPINCO has also strengthened and heightened its Covid-19 mitigation measures. SPINCO’s website currently says face masks are mandated throughout workouts in the company’s Hamilton location.
It also says that SPINCO is installing air purifiers in all of its studios that filter air in the rooms every 17 to 21 minutes. Airborne transmission experts recommend that building managers pump in clean, fresh air between three to six times an hour and that they install filters that are proven to effectively trap and remove a substantial number of virus-carrying particles.
To film a stage play of “A Christmas Carol” in November, the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis upgraded its air filters and increased the rate at which the ventilation system pumps in outside air, said
Brooke Hajinian,
the Guthrie’s general manager. Management staggered arrival times, and a compliance officer made sure everyone socially distanced, wore their masks properly and washed their hands.
The theater divided staff into pods depending on how close they must get to the lone actor on stage, who portrayed Charles Dickens and didn’t wear a mask while performing, according to Ms. Hajinian. Those working nearest the stage underwent testing three times a week and wore N95 masks at all times, she said, while cleaning and security crews, who didn’t interact with the stage crews, wore cloth masks and didn’t undergo testing.
Actor Nathaniel Fuller performed in ‘A Christmas Carol’ at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis.
Photo:
Kaitlin Schlick
Ms. Hajinian said she monitored the staff’s testing results and symptoms. “Any symptom is not a failure of this plan,” she said. Catching a case “and isolating it—that’s what success looks like for us,” she said. There were no cases, she said.
Scientists say multilayered safety efforts are needed because no single prevention method is 100% effective.
One of the largest studies of asymptomatic transmission to date showed that frequent testing was essential in identifying infections among a group of nearly 2,000 Marine recruits required to socially distance and wear masks except while eating and sleeping.
The study looked at cases identified with lab-based tests that search out and amplify the genetic material of the virus, but those tests aren’t as easily scaled as so-called rapid antigen tests, which search for viral proteins.
Results from lab-based tests can sometimes take days, while results from rapid tests are usually available in less than an hour. As a result, some epidemiologists have been advocating for widespread use of antigen tests to prevent outbreaks, because they are cheaper and don’t require high-tech laboratory equipment to run, meaning they can be deployed in a broader range of settings.
The shift toward using frequent, inexpensive and rapid tests on the same people multiple times a week to screen entire populations—instead of one-time tests on individuals who have symptoms—will be important to efficiently break transmission chains, epidemiologists said.
“Unless we’re doing really broad, frequent screening of the people at large, we’re completely missing the vast majority” of infections, said
Michael Mina,
an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We have to change how we’re doing this.”
A Covid-19 testing site at the Alemany Farmers Market in San Francisco in November.
Photo:
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg News
While rapid tests tend to be less sensitive than lab-based tests, Dr. Mina said the data suggest they have high sensitivity when people are most likely to be infectious.
Other infectious-disease experts have touted contact tracing to identify and bust clusters of infection. But they say the strategy works best when cases aren’t surging, as they are now. When transmission rates are too high, limiting gatherings, travel and crowding are more effective at denting spread, said
Abraar Karan,
a global-health physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
In places without big surges, a high-tech approach is becoming increasingly useful: genetic epidemiology, or tracking tiny changes in viral genomes to map out transmission chains. As the coronavirus replicates and moves from person to person, its genes change slightly. Sometimes, those tiny changes are unusual, and they can be particularly useful in mapping transmission events, according to
Justin O’Grady,
an infectious disease expert at the Quadram Institute in the U.K.
By sifting through the differences among more than 1,000 viral genomes, Dr. O’Grady and his collaborators found that a particular viral variant was moving through multiple nursing homes in the U.K., among patients and staff, but not among the wider community. The unpublished data suggested that transmission was facilitated by the movement of staff from one facility to another, Dr. O’Grady said. The team relayed the findings to government authorities and advised them to restrict staff moving among facilities during the pandemic.
“Sometimes genomic epidemiology is able to find hidden transmission links that traditional epidemiology would struggle to find,” Dr. O’Grady said. “We can’t stop transmission, but when we find a superspreader event…we can bring in the right prevention methods to stop it from spreading further.”
A London ad urged safety measures last week.
Photo:
Dinendra Haria/London News Pictures /Zuma Press
—Betsy McKay contributed to this article.
Write to Daniela Hernandez at daniela.hernandez@wsj.com, Sarah Toy at sarah.toy@wsj.com and Caitlin McCabe at caitlin.mccabe@wsj.com
LONDON—Doctors began noticing the change last month as the U.K.’s new coronavirus variant spread. In hospital critical-care units, they were seeing more younger people and women with serious cases of Covid-19, a disease that previously inflicted its worst symptoms largely on older patients and men.
The shift—backed up now by statistical studies—is part of an urgent puzzle preoccupying British public-health officials as they race to understand a strain of the virus that is more transmissible and, some studies indicate, could be deadlier than earlier versions.
One early hypothesis, scientists say, is that one of the virus’s genetic mutations makes it better at invading a greater number of cells inside the body, leading to serious sickness in people who with previous Covid-19 variants would only have had mild or no symptoms.
David Strain, a physician and instructor at the University of Exeter’s medical school who is also treating Covid-19 patients, said initial research paints a picture of a virus variant that is like a burglar that has become better and breaking and entering—into vulnerable cells in this case, not houses.
“We think that’s why it’s making people sicker as well as being more transmissible,” Dr. Strain said.
Virologists suspect that it is a particular mutation known as N501Y on the new variant’s spike protein that has enhanced its ability to enter and infect human cells and to move more efficiently through the human body.
Some doctors, such as Dr. Strain, think that is behind the rise in younger people and women—who for most of the pandemic have become ill at lower rates—ending up in the hospital.
Some things, doctors and scientists say, don’t seem to have changed with the new variant. Once hospitalized, patients seem to have the same chance of survival as before and doctors can’t tell from symptoms which variant a patient has.
In London, the southeast and east of England, where the new variant was first identified in a test sample from Sept. 20, the mean age of patients admitted to intensive-care units fell from 61.4 years between September and the end of November to 58.9 years from Dec. 1 to Jan. 21.
The proportion of women admitted into ICUs rose from 30.1% to 35.1% in the same period. Data from the rest of the country show a similar pattern.
As new coronavirus variants sweep across the world, scientists are racing to understand how dangerous they could be. WSJ explains. Illustration: Alex Kuzoian/WSJ
Through December, the proportion of 18- to 54-year-olds admitted to English hospitals with Covid-19 also began to trend up, before a national lockdown was imposed on Jan. 4.
Not all doctors are convinced this is explained by mutations in the new variant. Some think it could also be a matter of behavior changes, with more people, especially younger ones, mixing during the holiday season and becoming infected.
Luke Allen, a local doctor in Oxford, for instance, said he has been treating more younger patients but that he is seeing more Covid-19 patients in general, and the ratio of people seems to be the same as in the first peak.
Parts of London have been hit particularly hard by the new virus variant.
Photo:
May James/Zuma Press
He attributes the increased numbers to the greater transmissibility of the new variant and increased socializing over the holidays. “That increases the chances of their contact with us,” Dr. Allen said.
There is still considerable debate around whether the new variant is in fact deadlier, as some research suggests.
The new variant, which has become the dominant version across the U.K., is estimated to be 30% to 70% more infectious than earlier varieties. Last week, a government health advisory panel said studies suggest there was a realistic possibility that it also could be 30% to 40% deadlier than the previous variant.
The advisers say their conclusions are tentative. “Although there’s uncertainty, we can’t always wait for certainty,” said
Peter Horby,
chairman of the panel, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, or Nervtag.
Julian Tang, a clinical virologist and professor of respiratory medicine at the University of Leicester, said more evidence was needed to prove that the new variant was deadlier, given that social mixing was allowed during the winter months, greatly accelerating hospitalization rates.
“Viruses generally mutate to be more transmissible and less lethal,” he said.
The new variant’s spread has coincided with huge increases in the number of people hospitalized with Covid-19 and a rise in the number of people dying from the disease in the U.K., placing the state-run health service under unprecedented strain. Covid-19-related deaths in the U.K. are close to 100,000 since the start of the pandemic.
The disease caused by the variant so far doesn’t appear any different from that provoked by its ancestors, but because the virus itself is able to move around a patient’s system more easily, it can outpace the body’s immune response, doctors suspect.
“If you are getting much stronger binding you may need a lower infectious dose to become infected, which would increase the risk of transmission,” Dr. Horby said. “Then, if it’s been able to spread between cells much quicker within the lungs, then that may increase the rate of disease and the rate of inflammation which may then progress quicker than your body can respond to.”
To determine whether the new variant was deadlier, scientists looked at data from around 850,000 cases of the coronavirus tested in the community where they knew which variant of the virus each person had, including between 1,400 and 1,900 people who died.
“You have to compare people who are as similar as possible to each other,” said
John Edmunds,
an author of one of the studies by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
STAY INFORMED
Get a coronavirus briefing six days a week, and a weekly Health newsletter once the crisis abates: Sign up here.
The researchers matched groups of people based on age, sex and ethnicity as well as income and where they lived, to reduce the effect that pressure on hospitals might have had on death rates.
Dr. Edmunds’s group found that if two similar people had the coronavirus, the one who had the new variant was around 30% more likely to have died from the disease it causes. A group from Imperial College London found a similar likelihood of mortality with the new variant compared with its ancestor. University of Exeter researchers found a 91% increase in the risk of mortality from the new variant, though that could be because the population it examined skews older, Dr. Strain said.
Another study by Public Health England put the chances of dying after infection with the new variant around 65% higher than with the old version.
The results are preliminary and because only in around 10% of all the cases in the U.K. is the virus variant known, may not be representative of the population as a whole.
Write to Joanna Sugden at joanna.sugden@wsj.com and Max Colchester at max.colchester@wsj.com
YANBU, Saudi Arabia—The U.S. military has been using an array of ports and air bases in Saudi Arabia’s western desert, developing basing options to use in the event of a conflict with Iran, according to the top American military commander in the region.
The use of the bases, which hasn’t been previously reported, has occurred over the past year or more as top military commanders look for alternatives to safely move troops and materiel in and out of the region and to reduce their exposure to Iran’s ballistic missiles.
Several thousand American troops, jet fighters and other weaponry have been stationed at Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base since 2019 to respond to regional threats from Iran.
The troops were sent by former President Donald Trump, who cultivated close ties with Saudi leaders even after the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey in 2018.
The Biden administration has signaled that it plans to take a tougher approach to Saudi Arabia, particularly on human rights issues. However, continuing potential dangers posed by Iran have remained a leading consideration, U.S. officials indicated.
