The waters around the remote inhabited island of Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic are set to become the world's fourth-largest marine sanctuary.

The big picture: Currently less than 3% of the world's ocean area is fully protected from human activity, compared to 13% of the world's much smaller land mass. With the oceans coming under increasing pressure from fishing, pollution and climate change, expanding true marine sanctuaries is more important than ever.

By the numbers: The four-island archipelago of Tristan da Cunha is a British territory that is more than 2,000 miles east of South America and a week-long boat trip from South Africa.

• The new marine sanctuary, which was announced on Friday, will encompass 265,437 square miles, making it almost three times larger than the entire United Kingdom.

How it works: 90% of the waters around the island chain will become a full "no-take" sanctuary, meaning that fishing, mining, and any other kind of extractive activity will be banned.

• The sanctuary will be part of the U.K. government's larger Blue Belt Programme, which already protects some 2.7 million square miles of marine ecosystems around British territory across the globe.

What they're saying: "This is a place that has a unique ecosystem that is found nowhere else," marine conservationist Enric Sala told National Geographic magazine.

The bottom line: It wasn't that long ago that even environmentalists thought the oceans were far too vast to be affected by human activity, but we now know that's not the case. If we want the oceans and all they support to thrive in the future, we need to protect them in the present.

Editor's note: A reference to a PNAS paper on how expanding marine protected areas might improve future fishing catches was deleted, after the paper was retracted.

A sweeping new review makes the case that nature has a fundamental economic value — and our account is badly overdrawn.

Why it matters: The natural capital created by clean water and air, biodiversity and basic resources has been the foundation of human prosperity, but because it has no clear economic value, we too often treat it as infinite. Securing a sustainable future may require treating nature less like lottery winnings and more like a retirement account.

Driving the news: On Tuesday, Cambridge University economist Partha Dasgupta published a major report commissioned by the U.K. government about the underappreciated economics of biodiversity.

• In economic terms, Dasgupta notes that while produced capital — assets like factories and roads — doubled between 1992 and 2014, and human capital has increased by about 13%, the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly 40%.
• The report cites estimates that current extinction rates are 100–1,000 times higher than the planet's baseline rate and that 20% of species could become extinct within the next several decades.
• Those trends are in large part a consequence of how much Earth has become a support system for a single species: human beings.
• 70% of all birds alive today are poultry — mostly the 23 billion chickens being raised for food at any given moment — while humans themselves and the domesticated species used for livestock now make up 96% of the mass of all mammals on the planet.

The impact: "Estimates of our total impact on nature suggest that we would require 1.6 Earths to maintain the world’s current living standards," Dasgupta writes.

• Last time I checked, we've only got one.

The big picture: The degradation of nature has coincided with revolutionary improvements in the human condition, with the world's final output of goods and services rising more than 13-fold over the past 70 years, to more than $120 trillion in value.

• The report views those two facts as connected. From the richest billionaire to a person who has just emerged from absolute poverty, human prosperity depends on being able to draw from the resources nature provides — at least in market terms — for free.
• One study from 1997 estimated the global flow at the time of the biosphere's services — everything from water to air to pollination — was worth $33 trillion, more than the value of the world's GDP at the time.

The problem is that while nature's bank account may have plenty of zeros, it's not infinite, and as we draw it down, we undercut humanity's future, like a rich family wasting its descendants' inheritance.

• Dasgupta argues we need to look at natural capital as we would other forms of capital, investing it wisely to ensure that future generations enjoy not just natural splendor, but the raw materials an economy depends on.
• To do so, we need to figure out ways to equitably share the planet's natural capital, instituting payments to protect the ecosystems controlled by individual nations and imposing rents for common global resources like the oceans and the atmosphere.

The catch: Any such system would demand a degree of international governance and cooperation — not to mention individual discipline — that appears far beyond what we're currently able to manage.

• And even though Dasgupta is speaking the language of markets, his recommendations demand an overhaul of an economic system that has long been built on the short-term exploitation of natural capital, a fact some critics were quick to point out:

We cannot defend nature through the mindset that’s destroying it. The notion that it exists to serve us and that its value consists of the instrumental benefits we can extract has proved lethal to life on Earth.

— George Monbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) February 2, 2021

Our thought bubble: One of my underlying assumptions at Future is that technological progress is especially valuable in so far as it can enable us to sidestep our political and even psychological limitations.

• I'm doubtful that nearly 200 countries would ever come together to fairly divvy up the world's natural capital, just like I'm doubtful that human beings can be convinced to significantly curb their patterns of consumption.
• What's more likely to save us is the development of technologies that can enable us to get more out of our stock of natural capital — an approach Dasgupta does praise. We only have one Earth, but the ultimate economic value of the planet depends in large part on what human ingenuity can make of it.

The bottom line: As Dasgupta writes, when it comes to nature, "we are all asset managers."

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday that the U.S. Space Force "absolutely" has the "full support of the Biden administration."

Why it matters: After President Biden's election, some advocated that the incoming administration disband the newest branch of the military, first established by President Trump.

What's happening: "We are not revisiting the decision to establish the Space Force," Psaki said at a press briefing, adding that the Department of Defense's focus on securing space is a bipartisan issue.

Background: Psaki came under fire Tuesday when a top Republican lawmaker saw remarks she made in response to a question about the Space Force as dismissive of the guardians enlisted in the force.

• In response, Psaki tweeted Tuesday night that she would welcome Space Force officials to come speak to the press about their work.
• "I'm very proud of the guardians in the Space Force," Gen. John Raymond, the chief of space operations, said during a press call Wednesday morning. "I see the value of this force each and every day, and I'm happy to talk to anybody about the great work that they're doing. I would welcome the opportunity."
• Raymond also said that he has not yet spoken with President Biden about space.

The big picture: Many experts within the space industry see the Space Force as an essential means of keeping satellites and other key assets safe from attack.

• From GPS to photos of difficult-to-reach parts of Earth, the U.S. is increasingly reliant on space. This is particularly true when it comes to fighting wars, and the Space Force is expected to shore up defenses and capabilities in orbit.

If electric vehicle sales are going to take off in the U.S. as expected, demand for home chargers will likely surge as well.

Why it matters: Even though President Biden has vowed to add 500,000 public EV charging stations across the country, the reality is that most EV owners will be able to get all the power they need by plugging their car into a home charger overnight.

Driving the news: Sensing America's shifting momentum toward EVs, even foreign charging companies are starting to market their wares to American buyers.

• Spain's Wallbox, with 40,000 units deployed in 43 countries, launched its first smart charger for the North American market this week.
• The Pulsar Plus is available in two configurations — a 40Amp version for $649 that plugs into any 240-volt outlet and a 48Amp version for $699 that needs to be hardwired into the home.
• Most mid-range EVs can be charged in 6-8 hours using the 40Amp box.
• Charging can be controlled through a smartphone app or with voice commands via Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant, using either Bluetooth or a wifi connection.

The bottom line: Installing a home charger can seem like a pain, but the benefit is never having to go to the gas station again.

• The choices can be overwhelming. But most EV companies, partnering with an agency like Qmerit, will help customers find a certified installer and steer them to government incentives, too.
• Most are available for a federal tax credit for up to 30% of total equipment and installation costs up to $1,000.

SpaceX's Starship prototype dubbed SN9 took flight from Texas on Tuesday for a test that ended in a fiery explosion after a successful launch.

Why it matters: The rocket is part of SpaceX's test program to build a space system that can transport people and payloads to deep space destinations like Mars.

Details: SN9 managed to make it up to its target altitude of about 10 kilometers after launch before flipping around and flying through the air sideways.

• The prototype then flipped back in an attempt to land upright before exploding. The company's SN8 flight in December also ended in a fiery crash.
• "We've just got to work on that landing a little bit," SpaceX's John Insprucker said during a webcast.

The intrigue: Space watchers have been waiting for this test for about a week, but it took until Monday night for the FAA to approve this most recent flight.

• SpaceX violated its launch license during the SN8 test flight by exceeding the risk to the public allowed for the launch, leading leading to the FAA requiring SpaceX to conduct an investigation.
• The results of that investigation were incorporated into the most recent test's launch license.

NASA needs to do more to understand the risks posed to spacecraft by space junk and find new ways to mitigate the threat, according to a report last week from the Office of Inspector General.

Why it matters: Some see space junk as an environmental crisis in orbit. Millions of pieces of space debris speed around Earth at more than 17,000 mph, putting spacecraft and sometimes people in harm’s way.

Driving the news: The new OIG report suggests that while NASA has done a good job of deorbiting its own spacecraft and rocket bodies, many other nations haven't been as proactive, launching spacecraft and rockets that stay in orbit longer than the 25 years recommended.

• Now experts warn the space agency will need to both mitigate the junk already in space and prevent future junk from being created to keep spacecraft safe in the future.
• "Despite presidential and congressional directives to NASA over the past decade to develop active debris removal technologies, the Agency has made little to no progress on such efforts," the OIG wrote.
• The OIG also recommended NASA should develop a better means of tracking and understanding the nature of space junk in orbit to more effectively protect its spacecraft.

The catch: Nations and private companies are working to find ways to effectively clean up space, but those technologies are still early in development.

Near real-time satellite images of the Amazon are revealing deforestation and helping to combat illegal gold mining operations in the rainforest.

The big picture: As satellite data and analysis advances, researchers and companies on Earth have found new ways to make use of it — from helping to regulate the fishing industry to monitoring farming.

What's happening: Over the course of the last year, deforestation related to gold mining in six sites in the Peruvian Amazon decreased by about 78%, and 90% in La Pampa, Peru, which is considered a critical area.

• That reduction has been aided by the Amazon Conservation's Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP), which uses data from Planet's fleet of satellites and others to spot deforestation from space.
• "Just having that near-daily imagery availabilities has been a huge game-changer in terms of quickly getting eyes on these alerts," MAAP's director Matt Finer told Axios. "Since Planet has been doing this now since 2016, I believe they now have a robust archive, where we can then go back in time and kind of piece together, exactly what happened."

How it works: The MAAP team starts off with Landsat data in pixel form, showing possible areas of concern, where deforestation may be happening.

• From there, the team can zoom in on an area using Planet data that will show changes from day to day and month to month, allowing Finer and his team to pick out where deforestation is expanding.
• The MAAP team can then request that a higher resolution Planet satellite take a photo of the area of interest, which can be shared with local governments.
• "You have the government action, and then it loops back ... into the technology where we then monitor the effectiveness of the action," Finer said.

Yes, but: Satellite data and its usefulness is still limited by what governments and other actors are willing to do on the ground.

• MAAP is able to monitor the entire Amazon, and Finer and his team are hoping to find more willing government partners to help stop deforestation elsewhere.

A flight to space aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule expected to launch by the end of the year will help define the new age of commercial spaceflight — one where companies, not governments, bring private citizens to orbit.

Why it matters: The space industry is working to create a sustainable space economy in orbit, to support NASA missions and business ventures alike. Tourist flights are expected to be a big part of that.

Catch up quick: Businessman Jared Isaacman and SpaceX announced Monday that Isaacman has chartered a flight to orbit for him and three other passengers aboard a Crew Dragon.

• Isaacman has already chosen one fellow crewmember — an as-yet-unnamed woman who was chosen for the flight as an ambassador for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
• He is also running a raffle that anyone can enter to possibly win a seat on the trip. The money raised as part of the raffle will be given to the hospital.
• The fourth seat will go to the winner of an online competition run through Isaacman's Shift4Shop company.

Between the lines: "Any mission where there’s a crew onboard makes me nervous,” Musk said during an interview with NBC Nightly News. “The risk is not zero.”

The big picture: This isn't the only private flight on SpaceX's roster. A Crew Dragon will also fly a four-person Axiom mission to the International Space Station in early 2022.

What they're saying: "More private missions to space are great for everyone," Axiom said in a statement. "To normalize private spaceflight and drive costs down over time, it is essential now for as many of those who can go — or can sponsor others to go — to do so."

• NASA's head of human spaceflight Kathy Lueders sees Isaacman's mission as a natural outgrowth of the space agency's Commercial Crew Program that helped in the development of SpaceX crewed system.
• "Excited to see one of the original goals of @Commercial_Crew come to be with the expansion of new commercial activities beyond our own in low-Earth orbit," Leuders tweeted.

The Twin Cities started the year on a meteorologically high note, with daily temperatures averaging six degrees above normal throughout January, according to the National Weather Service.

The state of play: January recorded zero days below zero, NWS senior forecaster Joe Calderone noted. That followed just two sub-zero days in December. Sunday alone was 14 degrees warmer than usual.

Reality check: Don't get too used to the relatively mild conditions. The forecast shows the mercury dipping into the negatives by the end of this week.

• "We're going to see temperatures take a really strong dive," Calderone said. "I don't want to say it's inevitable, but it's part of winter here in the Midwest."

Flashback: This time two years ago, we were still thawing out from the polar vortex.

This story first appeared in the Axios Twin Cities newsletter, designed to help readers get smarter, faster on the most consequential news unfolding in their own backyard.

• Sign up here.

Amazon and SpaceX's scuffle about satellites shows how competitions between companies today are shaping humanity's future in space.

Why it matters: Billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are influencing the push for humans to settle the solar system — from a city on Mars to large space stations in orbit.

• Musk's and Bezos' goals aren't necessarily in conflict with one another, but as they seek advantages in orbit, critics warn of the risks posed by their bottom lines driving space exploration.
• "This thing they're doing for society's benefit — there's a competition involved," Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation told me.

Driving the news: Last week, Musk shot back at Amazon for what he sees as its attempted obstruction of SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation.

• SpaceX asked the FCC to allow the company to lower the orbits of some of its satellites in its planned constellation.
• But Amazon — which plans to launch its Project Kuiper satellites in the coming years — and other operators objected to that modification, saying it would interfere with their satellites.
• Musk tweeted that it isn't in the U.S.'s best interest to hamper Starlink before Kuiper is off the ground.
• "We designed the Kuiper System to avoid interference with Starlink, and now SpaceX wants to change the design of its system," Amazon responded in a statement. “Those changes not only create a more dangerous environment for collisions in space, but they also increase radio interference for customers."

Where it stands: This fight over satellite altitudes may seem small in the grand scheme of things, but the business models for both SpaceX and Amazon's space ventures hinge, in part, on the outcomes of these small battles.

• SpaceX sees Starlink partly as a way to bring in money that might be used to fund other ventures, like shoring up the technology needed to send people and payloads to Mars one day.
• Musk's company has also managed to get out ahead of the competition, with more than 900 Starlink satellites launched so far.
• Project Kuiper, which aims to provide internet access to underserved populations around the world, is also a stepping stone toward Bezos' dream of "millions of people living and working in space."

Context: Space exploration has long been considered a human endeavor that unites rival nations and is governed as a global commons.

• Musk and Bezos' rivalry paints a very different image of what the future of space might look like: one that is governed, at least in part, by the bottom lines of companies.
• And NASA is on board. The space agency is attempting to support private enterprise in space, to create a space economy based on businesses that buy and sell services.

The big picture: To critics, the biggest problem with Musk and Bezos' power in space isn't about them as individuals, but the pitfalls of long-term space exploration and settlement being driven by the capitalistic structure they represent.

• Squabbles about satellites could grow into fights about fresh air to breathe in space, critics worry.
• "If we don't take a radical shift toward really prioritizing labor rights, it's quite concerning imagining having a company or a government controlling the full life support system on a space station or a physical base on a planet," Danielle Wood, the director of the MIT Media Lab's Space Enabled Research Group told me.

But, but, but: That possible future still isn't inevitable, despite the power these billionaires hold.

• Governments are still the primary drivers and regulators of spaceflight and exploration, and the U.S. is beholden to the U.N.'s Outer Space Treaty, making the nation effectively on the hook for Musk and Bezos' behaviors in space.
• Space should be a place where everyone focuses on the needs of the broader community, "rather than the goals of particular companies," Wood said.

The first major winter storm of 2021 was lashing much of the Eastern U.S. over Monday night, with up to 30 inches of snow falling in some places.

The big picture: COVID-19 vaccination sites and schools closed across the Northeast, including in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York City, where the outdoor subway service was suspended. New Jersey's Transit also paused its bus and rail operations. Hundreds of flights were canceled or delayed in NYC, Philadelphia and Boston. At least three deaths have been attributed to the storm in Pennsylvania, per AP.

Snowfall reports as of 11 pm Monday:
NJ - Mendham 30"
PA - Lords Valley 28"
NY - Harrison 24.5"
CT - Danbury 19"
MD - Sabillasville 19"
WV - Terra Alta 15.6"
MA - East Acton 14.5"
RI - Richmond 12"
VA - Sparkling Springs 8.5"
NH - Londonderry 8"
VT - Readsboro 5"
DE - Woodside 4" pic.twitter.com/Th0SbyQfkw

— NWS Eastern Region (@NWSEastern) February 2, 2021

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more details on the storm and additional photos.

A massive uncontained bushfire has destroyed at least 30 homes in the Perth Hills, Western Australia, officials told the Australian Broadcasting corporation Tuesday.

Why it matters: Per state Premier Mark McGowan, "Right now WA is battling two different kinds of emergencies — a dangerous fire emergency and a COVID-19 lockdown emergency." He said there are "threats to lives and homes" from the wildfire.

Details: Police Commissioner Chris Dawson, who is the WA state emergency coordinator, told a briefing it's OK for those in fire-affected areas to go to a family member's house. That's despite COVID-19 restrictions requiring people to stay home unless there's an essential reason like grocery shopping.

• "If you're in that fire zone, don't hesitate, we don't want people to be so cautious that they or their loved ones are put under threat," he said.
• Since the wildfire broke out on Perth's fringes overnight, the blaze has so far razed some 17,000 acres amid hot, gusty conditions, fire officials said.

For the record: State capital Perth and other parts of WA entered a five-day lockdown after a security guard contracted COVID-19 from a newly returned traveler in managed hotel quarantine.

• The guard's case remains the only one in the community in the state.

Billionaire Jared Isaacman has effectively chartered a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule for the first all-civilian mission to orbit, expected to launch later this year.

Why it matters: The mission is ringing in a new era of commercial spaceflight, one where those with the means can make their orbital dreams a reality without involving government spacecraft.

Details: Anyone can enter a raffle to win a seat aboard the four-person flight, and another seat will go to a St. Jude ambassador. The money raised will go to the hospital.

• The last remaining seat will go to the winner of a "Shark Tank"-style contest, according to the New York Times.
• "I appreciate the tremendous responsibility that comes with commanding this mission and I want to use this historic moment to inspire humanity while helping to tackle childhood cancer here on Earth," Isaacman said in a statement.

The big picture: Last week, Axiom Space announced its crew for the company's first mission to the International Space Station, with an expected launch early in 2022.

• That mission will also launch aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon with four crew members.

The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines against disease and death has been remarkable, but too much emphasis on the unknowns about transmission could discourage people from getting vaccinated.

Why it matters: The best vaccine in the world won't stop the pandemic if too few people take it.

• While some uncertainty remains about their impact on spread and their effectiveness against new variants — not to mention distribution problems — the biggest challenge may be how to talk about vaccines to those who think the shots aren't worth it.

Driving the news: On Friday, Johnson & Johnson announced that its one-shot vaccine proved 66% effective against COVID-19.

• That's less than the 95% protection provided by earlier mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer, but the headline numbers underplay the effect the new shot could have on controlling the pandemic.
• In a more than 44,000-person study conducted across multiple countries, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prevented 85% of severe infections and 100% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those are the outcomes, of course, that turn COVID-19 from an annoyance to a global catastrophe.

Yes, but: While demand for coronavirus vaccines exceeds supply right now, recent polling suggests more than half of the U.S. would still decline or delay a shot if one were available to them now for free.

• Some of that hesitancy is driven by general skepticism about vaccines and specific concerns about the new shots, despite reams of scientific data underscoring their safety.
• But it doesn't help that much of the messaging around the vaccines emphasizes uncertainty about their effect on transmission as opposed to disease and death.
• It also pushes the idea that life shouldn't change for the vaccinated even after they've gotten all of their shots, as they might have to keep wearing masks and social distancing afterward.
• The CDC says "not enough information is currently available" to say when or if it will stop recommending masks and distancing for the vaccinated.
• That messaging has been seized on by those who feel the personal threat of getting COVID-19 doesn't justify accepting a shot, and by groups who want to delay a return to normal even after vaccines have become much more available.

Context: It's true that scientists have yet to produce clear data on how the vaccines might impact transmission, which can occur asymptomatically with COVID-19. The clinical studies that led to the vaccines' approval focused on disease and death.

• But as Patrick Vallance, the U.K.'s chief medical officer, told reporters recently, "You don't have vaccines of this efficacy without there being some effect on transmission."
• A study of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine in monkeys suggested it will reduce if not totally prevent onward transmission of the virus, and other research has shown similar effects with AstraZeneca's and Pfizer's vaccines.

Details: We won't know for sure whether the vaccines halt the chain of infection as well as prevent disease until scientists can carry out focused studies and observe the effects of growing vaccination numbers.

• Concerns also remain about the impact that more contagious variants will have on the effectiveness of vaccines.
• But none of this should be considered a reason to forego a shot for populations it has been approved for.

Yet some scientists worry that is precisely the message many hesitant about the vaccines will take away from the headlines.

• "Trying to eliminate even the lowest-risk changes in behavior both underestimates people’s need to be close to one another and discourages the very thing that will get everyone out of this mess: vaccine uptake," Harvard epidemiologist Julia Marcus wrote recently in the Atlantic.
• The reality is that the vaccine will need to be actively sold to many Americans, yet as infectious-disease specialist Aaron Richterman told the New York Times, "We're underselling the vaccine."

Flashback: To some scientists, the problems around vaccine messaging are reminiscent of the confusion around masks at the start of the pandemic, when medical experts — in part out of concern they would be misused — initially discouraged their use.

• That mistake worsened the pandemic and did lasting damage to public trust in science.

The bottom line: Public health is a delicate dance, one that requires experts to balance scientific rigor — which demands clear evidence that is often lacking in the midst of a crisis — with the need to shepherd an often stubborn public.

• But right now, Americans need a clear message about the public and personal benefit of vaccination, lest we miss our best chance to stop this catastrophe.

New Zealand has avoided locking down for a second time over COVID-19 community cases because of a swift, science-led response.

Why it matters: The Health Ministry said in an email to Axios Friday there's "no evidence of community transmission" despite three people testing positive after leaving managed hotel isolation. That means Kiwis can continue to visit bars, restaurants and events as much of the world remains on lockdown.

• There have been no domestic restrictions in NZ since early October.
• NZ hasn't faced a "worst-case scenario" since an outbreak last August, said scientist Shaun Hendy, who heads Te Pūnaha Matatini research center, which advises the government, in an interview with Axios.

Driving the news: A 56-year-old woman last Saturday became the first NZ resident to test positive for the virus since November. Genomic sequencing determined she contracted the more virulent South African strain during managed hotel isolation.

• Two other returned travelers tested positive after leaving the same Auckland hotel, it was confirmed Wednesday. They were genomically linked to the earlier case.
• All test results of the close contacts of the cases have tested negative.
• A key factor for not locking down was the virus was quickly detected owing to managed quarantine procedures and because the cases' exposure occurred before they reentered the community, per Hendy.
• Some 38,000 COVID-19 tests have been processed this past week.
• Genomic sequencing and mathematical and hypothetical modeling, which can predict potential outbreaks down to a suburb, meant officials knew "our systems were very likely to contain" the virus," Hendy said.

Of note: Hendy said Tuesday there had been a failure in the managed isolation process. "But then this has shown that our other systems when they are used well can actually keep us from having to lock down again," he noted.

• He added Friday that while researchers had a good understanding of the cases' links, "the fact that these cases were out in the community while infectious is worrying" and "lots" more testing was needed "before we can relax."

For the record: The government responded to the Pullman Hotel outbreak with measures including increased testing and requiring people who've just completed their two-week quarantine to isolate at home and get tested on the fifth day after release.

• Interim measures while an investigation is under way include not admitting new arrivals to the Pullman and, from Saturday, all returnees must stay in their hotel rooms after their day 12 test before their departure.

By the numbers: The country of 5 million has confirmed 1,949 coronavirus cases and processed over 103,000 returned travelers in managed isolation facilities since the pandemic began.

• Over 1.5 million COVID-19 tests have been processed, giving New Zealand one of the world's highest rates of testing per positive case.

The big picture: Last March, the government closed the borders to non-permanent residents and imposed one of the world's strictest lockdowns under a four-tier system.

• Lesser restrictions returned last August after a 102-day absence of detected community cases, with the city of Auckland locking down.
• The country is currently on level 1 measures, meaning "the disease is contained in New Zealand, but it remains uncontrolled overseas," per the Health Ministry. Masks are required for public transport and planes.

The bottom line: The World Health Organization said in an email to Axios there's "a lot that the global community can and is learning from the robust response in New Zealand" — including a "willingness to keep the response under review, and looking for ways to further strengthen it."

Per the WHO, other standout features include:

• Robust systems for whole-of-government emergency response;
• Robust preparedness for health emergencies including pandemics;
• Clear and proactive public communication resulting in "buy-in" from the community;
• Flexible legislative frameworks to support the response;
• Awareness of the need for investment in measures to mitigate economic and social impacts of the pandemic and of social distancing measures.

NASA is planning to re-do a major test of its Space Launch System rocket after the last test didn't go as planned earlier this month.

The big picture: The space agency hopes to launch the first uncrewed flight of the SLS by the end of the year, but having to re-run this test could put that timeline at risk.

Where it stands: NASA is planning to re-run the hot fire test — where the core stage of the rocket is strapped to a pad while its four engines fire — as soon as the last week of February, the agency announced Friday.

• For the first test, the four engines of the SLS's core stage were expected to light up for eight minutes, but instead, they only fired for about a minute before automatically shutting down.
• NASA is hoping this re-do of the test will see the core stage fire for at least four minutes, allowing the agency and its lead contractor Boeing to gather more data ahead of its first spaceflight.
• "Conducting a second hot fire test will allow the team to repeat operations from the first hot fire test and obtain data on how the core stage and the engines perform over a longer period that simulates more activities during the rocket’s launch and ascent," NASA said in a blog post.

What's next: It's not yet clear whether the agency will need to delay the first SLS flight planned for November.

• Once the second hot fire test is complete, NASA expects it will take about a month to get the rocket ready to ship from Mississippi to Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Go deeper: The next big NASA rocket's time has come

Paul Crutzen, the Dutch atmospheric chemist whose work helped save the ozone layer and who later popularized the idea of the "Anthropocene," died on Thursday.

The big picture: Crutzen's research was key to identifying the role that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) played in destroying the ozone layer. But his truly lasting legacy may be his early recognition that human beings had so altered the world that we had entered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene.

Background: Crutzen, who died at 87 after a long illness, shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995 for his work predicting the development and mechanics of the ozone hole.

• Crutzen, along with Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, showed that continued use of CFCs — chemicals used in aerosol sprays and refrigerants — would lead to greater levels of ozone depletion, which in turn would damage human health and the environment.
• Their work laid the groundwork for the passage of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, an international treaty that phased out ozone-depleting substances and quite literally helped save the world.

Details: Later in his career, Crutzen began looking to the enormous impact human activities were having on the planet — so enormous, in fact, that it represented an utter break in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history.

• In a 2002 Nature article, Crutzen coined a name for that new epoch: "the Anthropocene."
• As Crutzen co-wrote in an article nine years later: "We humans are becoming the dominant force for change on Earth."
• It makes sense, then, that Crutzen later moved onto studying solar geoengineering that could artificially cool the climate if global warming ran out of control, an action that if undertaken would represent perhaps the ultimate expression of the Anthropocene.

The bottom line: Crutzen's legacy is a healing ozone layer, and a clearer vision of the world we've made.

Editor's note: This post has been corrected to state that Sherwood Rowland won the Nobel Prize with Crutzen (not Stewart Rowland).

Millions of COVID-19 survivors worldwide — even those who had mild illness — are reporting long-term symptoms months later, including brain fog, persistent exhaustion, and lung, heart or kidney damage.

Why it matters: For too long, these long-haulers, as they call themselves, have not been taken seriously enough by providers and researchers, some doctors tell Axios, adding that there's an urgent need for dedicated research in order to treat patients with lingering symptoms.

Doctors started to realize long COVID was a problem last spring, and yet "there's little to show for it," says cardiologist Eric Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute

What's happening: Many providers and health care systems initially dismissed the symptoms as related to something else, but growing evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 as the culprit in many cases.

• A study published in The Lancet looked at people who had severe COVID-19 illness in China and found that six months later, 75% continued to experience at least one symptom.
• A preprint study in medRxiv, not yet peer reviewed, surveyed 3,762 self-described long-haulers from 56 countries, with symptoms after the onset of what was likely COVID-19. Six months after first becoming sick, almost half were unable to work full time and 22% weren't working at all. 88% had cognitive dysfunctions or memory loss, and most had multiple symptoms.
• Fragments of SARS-CoV-2 have been found in multiple organs and the Mayo Clinic reports they've seen frequent complaints of long-term persistent headaches, loss of smell (anosmia) and taste (ageusia), and trouble sleeping.
• Mayo found some patients had organ damage, including injured heart muscle, causing myocarditis, palpitations and fast heartbeats; scarred lung tissue, leading to breathing problems; and neurological damage, causing brain fog, strokes, seizures and Guillain-Barre syndrome.

Between the lines: There are other viruses that either cause long-lasting symptoms, such as Epstein-Barr, or stay in the system where it can reactivate and trigger later complications, like varicella-zoster.

• It is unknown if SARS-CoV-2 can hide in the system, but a recent, early study of animals in the journal Viruses indicates this could be a possibility.
• The cause of long COVID needs to be discovered before targeted therapies can be made, says Neha Dangayach, director of neuroemergencies management and transfers for the Mount Sinai Health System.
• "Is it a reactivation of the virus? Is it an immunological response or a persistent immunological response to the initial viral exposure? Or is it a recirculation of the viral particles that trigger some of these symptoms?" Dangayach asks.

There are also many questions about why some people develop long COVID-19 and others don't.

• "Why you, and not me? Why do [some] 80-year-old people who get COVID die, and some survive? Why do some 20-year-old people who get COVID need a double lung transplant, whereas 90% of all the others have no symptoms? We don't know," says Igor Koralnik, chief of neuro-infectious diseases and global neurology at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, who started a long COVID clinic in May.
• Topol says they need to figure out whether early treatments like monoclonal antibodies may help diminish the chance of long COVID.

What's next: Long COVID is becoming a higher priority, and several longitudinal studies are expected to come out soon, Dangayach says.

• In the U.S., Congress has set aside some funding for research and NIH has started studying the issue, NIH director Francis Collins says.
• Long-haulers are urged to seek specialized clinics, join support networks and consider sharing data in this patient-led survey.
• While there aren't enough overall, there are a growing number of multidisciplinary clinics popping up around the country to try to address the myriad problems associated with long COVID.
• Koralnik says his clinic "has specialists in all those different specialities, including psychiatry and social work," to care for long COVID patients.

The bottom line: "The onus really is on us to collaborate across the world and understand this better, develop targeted treatments, and follow these patients longitudinally to also identify when do these symptoms resolve, and what does it take for these symptoms to resolve," Dangayach says.

The pharmaceutical giant Roche is partnering with a quantum computing startup to find new treatments for disease.

Why it matters: The ability of quantum computers to model reality at the most foundational levels positions it as an ideal tool for rapidly searching for new drugs — provided, of course, the computers themselves can work.

Driving the news: This morning Roche announced it would begin using specialized algorithms produced by Cambridge Quantum Computing (CQC) to simulate quantum-level interactions in an effort to research new treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases.

How it works: CQC doesn't build quantum computers, which harness the weird workings of quantum mechanics to perform computation at extraordinary scales. Rather, it designs custom algorithms that can produce useful insights when run on a quantum computer.

• Roche will use CQC's EUMEN quantum chemistry platform to simulate quantum-level interactions in an effort to identify molecular combinations that could prove effective against disease.
• Finding a new drug is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack, but the sheer speed of quantum computers can accelerate that process, saving drug companies money and hopefully getting new treatments to patients faster.

Background: Roche had previously worked with graduate students at the University of Oxford on molecular simulations, while earlier this month the European drug discovery firm Boehringer Ingelheim announced a partnership with Google on quantum computing.

• "Especially in chemistry and material science, the impact of quantum computing is going to be profound," Ilyas Khan, CQC's CEO, told Axios in an interview last year.

The catch: While powerful, quantum computers are still error-prone and unstable, which has limited their practical value.

• That puts a premium on the development of custom algorithms that can get the most out of these systems.

The bottom line: As Khan told me, "ultimately you need a quantum system to understand a quantum system."