However, the concept of Long Covid also raises a broader question. If we can have Long Covid, can we also have long versions of other supposedly short diseases? What about Long Malaria? Long Pneumonia? Long Shingles?

 A look at Long Covid

When people first started reporting symptoms after the acute stage of covid had passed and they were testing negative, the initial response of the medical community was to label it as either ‘anxiety’ if the patient was young and particularly female, or as ‘natural aging’ if the patient was elderly. Not only did doctors dismiss the symptoms of the general public, they also dismissed the post-Covid symptoms of their fellow workers. Then the research began and the results started coming in—first in a trickle and then in a torrent.

COVID-19 has been generally viewed as a severe acute respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Long Covid refers to its after-effects, which can be broad in nature, evolving, and continue for an indefinite time. defines it as “an inflammatory or host response towards a virus that occurs approximately four weeks after initial infection and continues for a yet uncharacterized duration.” One meta-analysis looking at 14 to 110 days after infection listed 55 Long Covid , with the most common ones being fatigue, headache, attention disorder, hair loss, and shortness of breath. 

Another involving patients six months after ‘recovery’ found “functional mobility impairments, pulmonary abnormalities, mental health disorders.” Other studies also refer to brain fog, cognitive dysfunction, loss of taste and smell, pain in muscles and joints, depression, autoimmune diseases, and neurological impairments. A recent 2023 says the following: “More than 200 symptoms have been identified with impacts on multiple organ systems. At least 65 million individuals worldwide are estimated to have long COVID, with cases increasing daily.”

Such after-effects of covid should not have been a surprise to the medical community given the documented after-effects of previous pandemics.

Long-Term effects of 1918 Influenza Epidemic and other illnesses

After the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, many people suffered for weeks, months, and years. And were never quite the same again. Fatigue, insomnia, and depression were common post-flu symptoms. Admissions in psychiatric hospitals significantly for six years following the pandemic. People born during or just after the 1918 flu pandemic were on average slightly shorter as adults, and, some 60 years later, they showed a greater of heart disease and diabetes.

Given the past documented long-term effects of the 1918 Flu, not to mention SARS and MERS, and the current well-researched COVID-19, long-term effects of other illnesses seem not only plausible but .

 The discovery of Long Covid has led to the recent development of the term “post-acute sequelae of Covid-19” (PASC) — a medical term for the lingering after-effects of COVID-19. And by association, we’ve seen a renaissance of older, more general, terms such as ‘post-acute sequelae’ (PAS) and ‘post viral syndrome’.

The PAS of some illnesses are easy to believe because they affect the same primary organ and present similar symptoms as during the acute stage – only much later in life. Early childhood Pneumonia can in adult conditions of lung function deficits as well as “an increased risk of adult asthma, non-smoking related COPD, and bronchiectasis.”

Tuberculosis comes in two forms: active or latent. This means we can carry the tuberculosis bacteria within our body and it becomes active when our immunity is low. This can happen years or even decades into our life. Shingles is defined as an acute viral infection, but it could be said to be chronic on two counts. First, after the rash has disappeared, the pain can linger on for months or even years. And second, even once all symptoms are gone and the patient is said to have , “the virus remains latent in the dorsal root ganglia.” And so, similar to tuberculosis, shingles can recur, even years later, in times of stress.

The PAS of other illnesses are more difficult to accept because they are more varied.

Malaria is a parasitic mosquito-borne disease and has been found to be complex in its progress. After the mosquito bite, it can have an incubation period alone of anywhere from six days to one year before any symptoms show. Then, there is , which can continue for years. We seem to think that we have an illness and an infection only as long as we have a fever—but a silent infection can linger. Chronic malaria causes anemia, increased susceptibility to other infections, and even maternal complications. Furthermore, children who get the more dangerous version, cerebral malaria, have been shown to suffer from lifelong issues such as “cognitive, motor skills, and visual coordination impairment, as well as seizures and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”&�Բ�����;

Dengue is a viral mosquito-borne disease. It is lesser known than malaria but equally or more prevalent. And since it is lesser known in the western world, dengue is relatively under-researched. Its febrile period is about a week, but its PAS—body pain, fatigue, and depression—continue much longer. Most studies did follow-ups for only a maximum of six months. But a Cuban study covering two years actually showed an increase in after the one-year mark.

A study looking at patients who had had more than two years earlier found they still struggled with impairment of vision, hearing, swallowing, sleeping, and arthralgias as well as memory loss, mental confusion, and chronic health problems.

For more than the past 50 years, research has shown how viral infections in general can have a long lasting impact. A 1970 showed that neonatal virus infection in mice affected their behavior and weight, which in turn affected their aging process. A 1985 showed exposure to viral infections in utero increased risk of cancer and diabetes in adulthood. And now it’s known that acute infections of respiratory and gastrointestinal systems can long-term inflammatory disorders.

Even a condition very limited in time and space like burns can have a “long lasting on the quality of people’s lives, with persisting problems related to scarring, contractures, weakness, thermoregulation, itching, pain, sleep, body image and psychosocial wellbeing.”

Three hurdles seem to be limiting our imagination to see these illnesses in their entirety and therefore our complete treatment of them: we seem desperate to see all illnesses as short duration, implying fully curable; if illnesses cannot all be curable, then we want to at least neatly categorize them as acute versus chronic; and we wish to clearly allocate each illness to a single organ.

How long is long?

We like to see people as either well or sick. And if we’re going to be sick, we want to be sick only for a limited and well-defined number of days. So we haven’t wanted to think of the long-term effects of diseases. But unfortunately, they exist. With coronaviruses, a found fatigue in 60% of so-called recovered patients at the 12-month mark. With dengue, a found clinical symptoms in patients two years after infection. With SARS, a found fatigue in 40% of the subjects at the four-year mark. And the 12 months, 2 years, and 4 years did not signify the end of the PAS – merely the end of the studies.

How long is “long”? Why should a disease that has somehow remained active in the body for so long suddenly subside at the 4-year mark? It may not work in accordance with our hope, our calendar, nor our attention span. A 2021 of post viral syndrome shows how the viral load and inflammation often subside immediately after the acute stage but then gradually increase years later, bringing in their wake old and new symptoms. Some that the 1918 Flu may have been responsible for the surge in coronary disease in the 1960s—some 40 years later.

Doing longitudinal studies of 10, 20, or even 40 years requires time, money, a long attention span, not to mention a historical bent. And we’ll have to wait to do truly long-duration studies of COVID-19. But in the meantime, we would be unhelpful and irresponsible to dismiss patients’ post-illness symptoms just because we can’t prove them, we don’t understand them, or we don’t yet have research evidence. What we don’t yet know about diseases and medical science will fill many textbooks in the future. We need to be humble and open-minded.

Rethink “acute” versus “chronic” and “single system” versus “multi system”

We also like to neatly categorize things. With illnesses, our practice has been to categorize them into chronic and acute. A chronic illness is slow developing and long lasting: like diabetes or hypothyroidism. An acute illness is sudden in onset and short in duration: like a broken bone or a heart attack or influenza (flu). But a broken bone can be the result of slowly evolving osteoporosis and a heart attack can be the result of plaque slowly building up in the blood vessels. And even a can have long PAS.

Perhaps there are no such distinct categories as acute and chronic. Perhaps it’s more of a spectrum. And perhaps one leads to another. An acute condition can be the result of a chronic illness. And what begins as an acute infection may have a chronic avatar. And furthermore, that chronic avatar may or may not be identical to the original disease.

We are prone to thinking of one illness as affecting one organ or, in other words, a single system. But this perspective is being questioned. Many autoimmune diseases—and even and —are now viewed as multisystemic.

Furthermore, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a physician and an academic, has said that many diseases themselves are not distinct entities, but rather entities, which are all associated with each other. She gave the that “people with hypothyroidism are four times more likely to have rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular diseases.” Dr. Debby van Riel, a virologist at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, even the flu as a multisystemic disease that affects not just the respiratory tract but many parts of the body.

And while COVID-19 is thought of as primarily a respiratory illness, Long Covid is “a multisystem disorder that commonly affects the respiratory, cardiovascular, and hematopoietic systems,” not to mention the neurological, cognitive, and musculoskeletal systems.

A recent German gives a list of over 25 ‘non-persistent viruses’ and an even longer list of their associated PAS. These PAS concern not only the primary infection organ, but also various other organs – making the long-term effects multisystem in nature.

Getting a fuller picture 

The reason we’re not getting the full picture of illnesses is primarily due to our refusal to see it. And our refusal to see the full picture is contributing to the partial treatment and persistence of such illnesses, not to mention the frustration and continuing disability of patients.

A 1939 study the following: “Malaria is a chronic disease, not alone an infection of the blood stream characterized by chills and fever”. And yet, even today, the World Health Organization (WHO) malaria as “an acute febrile illness.” That 1939 study also warned that “Failure to comprehend or detect its insidious course and its strong tendency to relapse, even after months or years, accounts for the fact that it still ranks as one of the serious social and economic problems.”&�Բ�����; And yet an in the Lancet just last year was titled “Malaria: (still) a global health priority.” A 1987 presented the term ‘post-viral syndrome’ and hoped that “awareness of the syndrome will lead to an increase in its diagnosis in general practice”. More than three decades on, we’re still waiting.

In the spirit of optimism, our society likes to see diseases as short, clearly defined, and easily curable. Speedy onset, obvious symptoms, crisp diagnosis, a magic potion, and fast resolution. Long-term chronic conditions that do not arrive in a dramatic fashion, that have no clearly visible symptoms, and that dribble on are – let’s face it – boring. Doctors lose interest and sometimes even the families lose interest. The patients may not lose interest but they get exhausted by their struggle to be heard and believed over a course of weeks, months, and sometimes years. But with such myopic and dismissive behavior, we will continue to see only the fiery heads of the comets and miss their debilitating long tails. And in doing so, we’re failing to fully treat these diseases and we’re doing a huge disservice to the sufferers of PAS—leading to economic costs to our society as well as costs in lives only partially lived.

If we are to fully and effectively manage the long tail of diseases, we need an evolution in the perspective of the academic research community as well as the practicing medical community to view illnesses more holistically both in terms of time, encompassing years, and space, encompassing multiple body systems.

Today, we can use the unprecedented opportunity thrown up by the current discovery of, attention to, and momentum concerning Long Covid to finally do three things: ignite researchers to look into the long-term effects of other illnesses, convince medical practitioners to accept the possibility that seemingly short-term diseases can have long-term consequences, and help millions of patients to attain more complete treatment and support, giving them the opportunity to live fuller lives.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Long Covid Shines Spotlight Now on Other Long Diseases appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Dr. Eric Dickson, president and CEO of UMass Memorial Health in Central Massachusetts told the : “When health officials ordered an end to elective surgeries during Covid-19, it was understood to be temporary. The difference now is we don’t see the end. We’re not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. This isn’t a surge we’re dealing with. This is the new reality.”

Boarding is wrecking emergency departments

One significant cause of the trouble is something called which occurs when a patient is held in the emergency department after they have been admitted to the hospital because there are no inpatient beds available. In a written to President Joseph Biden by more than 30 medical academies and national associations, including the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the Emergency Nurses Association, healthcare leaders implore the administration to recognize and address these most pressing issues. “Boarding has become its own public health emergency and our nation’s safety net is on the verge of breaking beyond repair.”&�Բ�����;

The letter goes on to outline the underlying issues caused by boarding, “while the causes of ED boarding are multifactorial, unprecedented and rising staffing shortages throughout the healthcare system have recently brought this issue to a crisis point, further spiraling the stress and burnout driving the current exodus of excellent physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals.”&�Բ�����;

The winter months have brought this crisis to a head. In many parts of the United States, a “triple threat” of flu, Covid-19 surges and RSV or respiratory syncytial virus in the pediatric population is placing an insurmountable burden on the emergency departments across the country. The letter goes on to ask the President: “the  undersigned organizations hereby urge the Administration to convene a summit of stakeholders from across the healthcare system to identify immediate and long-term solutions to this urgent problem. The letter explains that the “breaking point” is completely outside the control of the workers and looks to the administration for help.

Since the Start of the Pandemic, Americans Are Drinking Too Much

Doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers burnout

Another issue compounding the present crisis is healthcare worker burnout. The American Medical Association (AMA) recently released a revealing that almost 63% of physicians felt burned out in 2021. And these statistics aren’t reserved solely for doctors; nurses, physician assistants, technicians and other healthcare workers are reporting similar burnout numbers. Feelings of burnout and being overwhelmed are plaguing the American health workforce and reflect a systemic breakdown in healthcare. According to Chrisine Sinsky, MD, AMA vice president of professional satisfaction: “While burnout manifests in individuals, it originates in systems.” Burnout is not the result of a deficiency in resiliency among physicians, rather it is due to the systems in which physicians work.”

Looking for a Safe Place in Facebook’s Digital Universe

The rate of burnout is a major contributing factor to staffing shortages and needs to be addressed. The letter addressed to President Biden recognizes this issue and calls for solutions: “Overcrowding and boarding in the emergency department is a significant and ever-growing contributor to physician and nurse burnout, as they must watch patients unnecessarily decompensate or die despite their best efforts to keep up with the growing flood of sicker and sicker patients coming in.”&�Բ�����;

Healthcare workers who experience burnout have a much higher rate of early retirement and/or leaving the practice of medicine altogether. It also directly contributes to the loss of skilled healthcare professionals, adding more strain to those left behind. The letter states: “It is critical that we end the burnout cycle in the emergency departments to ensure our nation’s health care workforce can meet the needs of its patient population.”

It is quite clear what problems are facing the healthcare system in the United States. And with this crisis looming over the heads of millions of Americans, it will be imperative for the government and its agencies to recognize the scope of the problem and to act accordingly. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US Emergency Departments Are Overstretched and Doctors Burned Out appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The effects of conspiracy theories in Italy were particularly noticeable when a wave of spread across various moderate to large cities last year. A small portion of the Italian population protested all over the country against the government’s mandatory vaccinations and use of the , a document needed until April 1, 2022 to enter public places and given only to those who had been given both vaccine doses. The conspiracies fuelling these protests focused on the government’s handling of the pandemic, the dangers of vaccines, and the basic existence of COVID-19. While most protests were peaceful, conspiratorial belief pushed some individuals to carry out violent attacks.   

Conspiracy Theories and COVID-19

Conspiracy theories can be as “attempts to explain the ultimate causes of significant social and political events… with claims of secret plots by… powerful actors.”&�Բ�����; Scholars find that they tend to arise in correspondence to incomprehensible and unexpected worldwide events that feelings of fear, uncertainty, lack of control, and stress. Individuals who possess these feelings tend to believe in conspiracies because they provide alternative and simplistic answers to events which would otherwise be difficult to understand. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has created the perfect environment for conspiracy theories to flourish. Given its uncertain and inexplicable environment, people have turned to conspiracies to better understand the situation they are living in. In addition, thanks to the stay-at-home orders, people have spent the majority of their time on social media platforms, which are rife with conspiracy theories. 

Myriads of radical right extremists were and continue to be extremely active on social media platforms. They spread numerous conspiracies regarding the origins of COVID-19. While some were new in nature, others were readapted old tropes which came to include the pandemic. Some of the most common conspiracies disseminated by the radical right were: anti-Asian (with many different scenarios speculating as to whether poor food hygiene was to blame or whether Asian governments intentionally created and spread the virus to secure global dominance), anti-Semitic (the Jewish population was blamed for spreading the virus to advance its financial goals), anti-immigrant (with a readaptation of the Great Replacement theory, itself often imbued with implicit anti-Semitism, in addition to anti-black and Islamophobic elements), anti-government (governments were blamed for controlling and suppressing societies by taking away individual freedoms) and anti-vaccine (governments were criticised for using them to monitor people). 

Conspiracy Theories in Italy: Dangerous or Not? 

Last year and early this year, Italy experienced a wave of nationwide protests, with individuals expressing their anger towards imposed by the government. The government imposed vaccinations for workers in almost every sector. Workers who refused to be vaccinated were to have their employment terminated. The Green Pass was mandatory too. Italians utilized their right to protest to express their anger against these policies. Sadly, this anger is often fuelled by nefarious, conspiratoracies. Some of these clearly encourage individuals to carry out violence during or after the protests.  

Between September 2020 and April 2021, during the first wave of nationwide protests , Italian citizens against the government’s mandatory lockdowns, they questioned the existence of the virus, and doubted the COVID-19 vaccine. Their anger was reinforced by a series of conspiracy theories that had spread on social media. Most of these stated that COVID-19 did not really exist, but was actually a falsehood perpetrated by governments to control individuals. They claimed that the Italian media was exaggerating the number of deaths and cases in the country. They also argued that governments had created vaccines to monitor individuals. Furthermore, these vaccines were believed to be dangerous as they were created far too quickly and without enough tests to prove their efficacy.

This more recent wave of protests was also founded on conspiracies ranging from anti-government to anti-vaccine. A portion of the Italian population is convinced that the government is consolidating its power over its citizens by controlling them, taking away their individual rights and freedoms, and controlling the country’s money supply. They also believe that vaccines are still harmful and should not be administered to young children. Protestors have come to define the Italian government as a “health dictatorship or tyranny.” In November 2021, a massive crowd in Milan greeted the well-known vaccine skeptic , praising his words against the Green Pass and mandatory vaccination. 

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, not all protests were peaceful. Some resulted in violent attacks. On April 3. 2021, attacked a vaccination hub in Brescia, Lombardy with multiple incendiary devices. Investigators and prosecutors argued that the main of the perpetrators was to damage the hub and interrupt the vaccination campaign in the city. 

The attack was a direct outcome of Pluda’s journey into conspiracy theories. On his Facebook page, Pluda shared a variety of posts, pictures and memes of different conspiracies ranging from anti-government to anti-immigration, from anti-vaccination to anti-COVID. He believed that COVID-19 was a hoax and that the government had created it for its own agenda and that vaccines were created to control the population. Because of his beliefs, Pluda took part in many of the anti-vaccination and anti-COVID protests, which he advertised on his Facebook page with the aim of  gathering as many of his friends and followers as possible.

Other protests at taking down the government and changing the social and political order. These protests turned violent when on , protestors guided by the leaders of Italy’s far-right groups, such as Forza Nuova, broke into the headquarters of the Italian General Confederation of Labor (CGIL — Italy’s most important trade union) in Rome and caused havoc. Protestors managed to overtake police officers at the entrance and gradually make their way through the offices, damaging furniture, destroying objects and breaking windows. 

How to Curb Violence?

After the violent attack in Rome, Italian prosecutors and investigators have been working to arrest any individual with extreme and radical views who was tied to the protests. Many of the individuals arrested were part of a Telegram channel called “” (“Stop the Dictatorship”), which has been taken down because of its hateful comments. The channel boasted several thousand members that talked about taking up arms, committing attacks on Italian institutions and taking down the health dictatorship. 

While this is a step in the right direction, the Italian government can implement more information campaigns — both online and offline — which could be crucial to avoid the spread of conspiracies. By increasing the amount of factually correct information on vaccines and COVID-19 and by taking down posts, videos, and memes that spread conspiracies, the Italian government could mitigate violent attacks in the future. 

Conspiracy theories can be dangerous and can push individuals to commit violence, especially when the environment is stressful, inexplicable, and uncertain. The conspiracies related to the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed individuals worldwide to commit violent attacks. Italy is no exception and, like other nations, must act speedily to curb such violence.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

One Time Monthly Yearly

Donation Amount

$11 $111 Other

$

The IRS recognizes 51�Թ� as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

You can also contribute via

X

$5.00

Per Month

Already have an account? Sign in

Payment information

Card number

Expiration

CVC

The post How Dangerous Are COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories In Italy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

[We’re going to try something new here at 51�Թ�. I live in a small, quirky carriage house in Washington, DC, and this column is my view of DC as I see things. If I don’t get too much hate mail, then maybe we’ll keep it rolling. On the other hand, if I get enough hate mail, maybe I’ll keep doing it “just for the sake of my own stupid pleasure.” Let’s find out.

P.S. Each heading is a quote from something somewhere or other. To the person who emails me 11 correct identifications, I’ll buy you a drink at Martin’s Tavern…or we can have a friendly chat over the phone while ��’m at Martin’s having a drink. Why 11? Because that’s how we play around here.]

“Water, water every where, / Nor any drop to drink.”

After spending trillions and trillions of dollars on COVID, much of it recklessly, Congress is digging through the couch cushions to find another $10 billion for actual COVID treatment. How did this happen? 

Start off with the fact that most of the money was thrown at transfer payments, not on treatment. To a degree this was entirely understandable, but the level of fraud that has come to light is staggering. Both parties spent like drunken sailors, but the most egregious was US President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion extravaganza as the pandemic was waning. That law, amongst other things, bought tremendous “relief” to the poor, pitiful state governments that are presently drowning in cash. We also had a million other things that were tangentially related to treating the coronavirus. Oh, and we bought inflation with that money. Maybe you’ve heard something about that?

��’m not saying the Republicans were any less scattershot, but they spent the money when a) the virus was a real unknown, and we were going into the lockdown blind, and b) we had not developed an actual, real, very good vaccine. When Biden splurged cash, several vaccines were already in production. The issue now seems to be whether to use unspent funds from other COVID programs to spend it on… wait for it… actual COVID treatment. What an idea! Yet here we are in a panic over what is, relative to other COVID spending, a drop in the bucket.

Speaking of panic… 

“It was like when you make a move in chess and just as you take your finger off the piece, you see the mistake you’ve made, and there’s this panic because you don’t know yet the scale of disaster you’ve left yourself open to.”

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona must be in a panic these days. Around the turn of the year he was perp-walked into a volley of machine gun fire on the Build Back Better bill that failed, and his “yea” vote has come back to haunt him. Perhaps that’s why he’s so eager to embrace . 

Title 42 was a Trump administration program that prevented immigrants from entering the US during COVID. Lifting such a restriction is understandable now that the pandemic is on the wane. However, this does not jive with retaining restrictions that the Biden administration seems to be fond of. The Department of Justice is appealing the revocation of the public transportation mask mandate by the court. 

This inconsistency is largely immaterial relative to the burning issue of asylum seekers. The “Remain in Mexico” policy keeps asylum seekers south of the border while their claims are heard in the US. The Biden administration sought to end this policy, which Texas is currently enforcing. The administration’s lawyers took Texas to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 26. Clearly, immigration will be on the ballot come midterms in November.

The combination of “Remain in Mexico” and Title 42 prevented the spread of COVID and avoided a bum-rush to the US border. If both of them were to go, there would be a tsunami of immigration. The Democrats in swing states might find voters would like them to be giving a damn about this issue, which hits headlines as immigrants surge and families are inevitably broken up every summer.

“This is family business,
And this is for everybody standin’ with us”

And while we’re talking about dealing with families, there’s a distinct disjoint between the rhetoric surrounding Florida’s “Don’t say gay” , a mischievously if ingeniously labeled piece of legislation, and its popularity. This law does not want kindergarten children taught liberal sex education. When told what’s in the law and not just spoonfed the hashtag du jour, folks seem to like it. Go figure.

Polite circles won’t mention this, but according to a by Public Opinion Strategies, Democratic voters support the law by 55% to 29%. Biden voters swing 53% to 30% in its favor. Even those who “know someone LGBTQ” go 61% for and 28% against, and just to show that Disney is on the wrong side of this, parents like the law to the tune of 67% to 24%. Disney brought a knife to a gunfight by supporting this law. 

Social mores may have brought “a whole new world,” but Disney seemed to have wished upon the wrong star, and its special treatment by the state of Florida is over. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that revokes the status of Disney’s independent district, Reedy Creek. There’s now even talk of taking away the entertainment behemoth’s preferential copyright treatment.

Turns out running your own independent “Magic Kingdom” is a lot less expensive than letting the government run the show. Sure, Disney could probably fix potholes and run emergency services and utilities better and cheaper. Once the new law takes effect, Disney will also lose control of land use, building standards, and environmental protection that it has enjoyed for decades. Insiders predict Disney will have to pony up of dollars annually to the government now and join the hoi polloi.

If Disney is going to support progressive policies, what could be more progressive than letting government get more involved? frets that Disney will no longer be able “to manage its own streets, permitting, bond issuance, and so forth.“ Wait, I thought corporate control over things government usually does was a great threat to “our democracy.” At least that is what left-leaning publications like Slate tell me.

But lo and behold, even Mother Jones is defending corporate personhood, an idea hitherto hated by Democrats, with a stating Disney’s Civil Rights were violated. To be fair, Mother Jones has said it stands against corporate personhood but dislikes Republican hypocrisy. However, the defense of Disney’s special privileges by blue-blooded Democrat-supporting publications certainly seems incongruous. However, there might be a way out of this Disney-Florida impasse. The law doesn’t come into force until June 1, 2023, so there’s plenty of negotiating to be had.

Part of the problem was the over-the-top language Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek chose when he the Florida bill “yet another challenge to basic human rights.” Mr. Chapek, Bob. May I call you Bob? Bob, didja read the bill? This isn’t Bucha where basic human rights are being violated. No cluster munitions spray labeled “for the children” are being dropped. These are first world concerns at best. A pertinent section of the law reads “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate.” Bob, take a deep breath: this is not exactly a Nuremberg Trial transcript.

When I think of Bob’s situation, it reminds me of what happened to Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB). He moved last year’s All-Star Game from Georgia to Colorado in the wake of the supposed “voting rights” kerfuffle. He was then reminded of MLB’s cozy relationship with China and the fact that though he opposed showing ID to vote, you needed one just to work concessions at the game. So, Mr. Manfred was against IDs for the purposes of voting, but in favor of them if you wanted to hawk beer under his banner. Because… yeah, that totally makes sense. Finally, there was this . Turns out the Commish is a member of the tony Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. Was he going to stand by his principles and resign from such a toxic Georgian institution? Apparently not. All of this over a bill he likely didn’t or understand.

I have no horse in this race, except I wish companies would simply stick to their knitting and stop virtue signaling at every turn. For years companies figured it was worth the signal to prevent marches, employee walkouts, and internet shenanigans, and that more conservative minds would grit their teeth and get on with life, but that thinking may be coming to an end. Fine by me.

One of the underreported friends lost by the US is Saudi Arabia. Recently the Saudis have cogitated on the idea of accepting yuan for oil, thus undermining the petrodollar. Who can blame them? Biden has done everything possible to infuriate our ally.

Those in the Biden Administration scratch their heads and wonder why the Saudis won’t play ball and just pump more oil, but a quick recap leaves little to the imagination. Start off by campaigning with the friendly of calling the House of Saud a “pariah.” Then declare that Saudi Arabia would “pay the price” for, amongst other things, having a government with “very little social redeeming value,” and you start to get the picture.

After such pronunciations, Biden went on to withhold support for Saudis’ defense against the Houthis and no longer designate this Yemeni group as terrorist. His administration withheld Patriot missiles from the Saudis, fundamentally breaking the long understanding that the US provided the Saudis defense cover while they dutifully pumped oil. Also of note was Biden’s decision to release a CIA report in February 2021 that said Mohammed bin Salman, AKA MBS, was responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Come September, MBS was so hot on the subject he started at Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, when asked about the murder.

To top it off, the Biden administration has further inflamed relations with Saudi Arabia by trying to cobble together a nuclear pact with the Iranian regime, the sworn enemy of the Arabs. This project seems doomed. For all the humiliating US prostrations before Iran, including an offer to drop the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the terrorist list, the Ayatollahs appear unmoved. US flirtations with Iran might not have succeeded but it has caught the eye of Saudi Arabia, and it’s not winning Biden any friends over there. Even before recent Saudi-US tensions, the Asia Pivot under Barack Obama and the flaming dumpster fire left behind by Biden in Afghanistan were perceived as waning US interest in the Middle East.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Having run an expensive election campaign, Biden should know that money talks. Beijing purchases 1.8 million barrels of Saudi oil per day and the Kingdom has become China’s. The petrodollar may soon be in limbo, and with it the old deal between the US and Saudi Arabia that originally propped up the dollar. Starting in 1974, Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in dollars in return for Washington providing arms, oilfield security, and defense cover to Riyadh. Now we have a situation where Saudi and the United Arab Emirates won’t even take Biden’s call, won’t pump more oil, and MBS is yelling that the US should “forget about its request to boost oil production.” Hell’s bells.

HMU @: christopher.roper.schell@fairobserver.com

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post DC Deconstructed: The View from the Carriage House appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Despite the rapid surge, inflation was not totally unexpected since it is partially attributable to measures taken to reopen national economies, resulting in increased demand and disruptions of supply chains and production, says Archana Sinha, the head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute. In this sense, the current inflationary environment differs from the one in the late 1970s and may prove only transitory.

COVID-19 Policies Carry Implications for South Korea’s Presidential Election

READ MORE

There are, however, other drivers of inflation that may prove more long-lasting. This includes, as Domingo Sugranyes of the Pablo VI Foundation points out, decarbonization and economic concentration, allowing excessive pricing power. Additional factors are rising property and stock prices, as well as the increase of raw material prices, Etienne Perrot explains.

As a result, as Valerio Bruno mentions, central banks’ instruments, such as raising interest rates, may not suffice to reverse current inflationary pressures. Bruno, a researcher, says that we can “expect a long period of high inflation.” That being said, it is far from certain that central banks are willing to use these instruments because of their concern with financial stability that a selloff on financial markets may jeopardize.

From a socioeconomic perspective, Andrew Cornford recalls that inflation is not a “uniform problem” since its effects vary among countries, sectors and groups. The main problem, Bruno points out, is that “the wages of workers, in particular the middle class, suffer greatly from a declining purchasing power. If wages are not adjusted to inflation, consumptions and companies’ profits are affected, leading to a possible economic recession.”

On the other hand, inflation may benefit debtors by depreciating their debts. However, Cedric Tille, a professor in macroeconomics, warns that “any persistent inflation will raise the cost of additional borrowing” in the future and therefore “any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary.” For instance, Sugranyes says, “many weaker debtors will find growing difficulty in refinancing at higher interest rates.”

The current rise of inflation pressure may prove to be only temporary — not inflation in the pure sense — but it has to be taken seriously because it could dash hopes of economic recovery and weigh on the morale of populations exhausted by waves of social restrictions.

By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski

Note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: What are the main threats, but also possibly the main opportunities, related to inflation?

“… inflation is not new … ”

“Inflation is not new; it was hidden behind rising property and stock prices, leading to properties disparities. As international competition has diminished, the rise in energy and raw material prices has a direct impact on consumer goods. Its social effects (on pensioners and various marginal groups), as well as its economic consequences for long-term investments (distortions) and interest rates (rise), must be taken into account. On the other hand, inflation favors, for a time, companies, indebted households and massively borrowing states. Debtors become more credible in financing the investments needed for the ecological transition”

Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)

“… any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary … ”

“While inflation has a short-run benefit for debtors, one must bear in mind that these debtors will borrow additional amounts in the future. Any persistent inflation will raise the cost of these additional borrowing, including a term premium. Therefore, any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary. Looking through the inflation movements of the coming months, which hopefully will prove temporary, the reasons underpinning central banks’ mandates of symmetric price stability remain as valid as they have ever been.”

Cedric Tille ­— professor of macroeconomics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva

“… inflation does not entail any real benefit …”

“Inflation does not entail any real benefit for most governments and businesses. Although debts may be depreciated in the long term, many weaker debtors will find growing difficulty in refinancing at higher interest rates and will see financial flows fleeing toward ‘safer’ harbors. There are objective reasons for cost increase, like decarbonization or restructuring of supply chains, which should lead us to admit that we are slightly poorer than we thought. Concentration also may allow business excessive pricing power. The vicious circle of inflation is an illusionary way of denying these facts, leading to even worse impoverishment. Some governments may be tempted to print money, [but] there will be growing pressure for automatic indexation of salaries and pensions. Difficult challenges!”

Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group

“… policy responses must address distributional dimensions … ”

“Inflation is not a uniform problem. It varies among countries (high, middle and low-income), among income groups within countries, among goods and thus producing sectors (e.g., energy and primary commodities used for food), and amongst services (e.g., health-related, finance and travel). As is generally acknowledged, policy responses — both national and those involving international finance and aid — must address distributional dimensions, avoiding links to austerity and other attached conditions likely to increase poverty. In developed countries, policy design will frequently be handicapped by a lack of pertinent data, especially regarding wealth in the form of financial assets and tax liabilities. An option here would be a once-and-for-all capital levy high enough to help a government to deal with immediate increases in its financial liabilities, while leaving permanent solutions to the problem of enormous inequalities of wealth to be attained as part of a future response to longer-term needs and objectives.”

Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

“… the risks of inflation far outweigh the possible benefits … ”

“It seems to me that the risks of inflation far outweigh the possible benefits. To make effective use of the tools available to central banks, it would be necessary to understand the real causes of inflation (a ‘drugged’ financial economy, monopolies and oligopolies, or the costs of raw materials). Unfortunately, central banks’ instruments, such as raising interest rates, are not always sufficient to reverse this trend. We can therefore expect a long period of high inflation, with ‘classic’ safe-haven assets as gold reaching historic highs. The main problem with inflation is that the wages of workers, in particular the middle class, suffer greatly from a declining purchasing power. If wages are not adjusted to inflation, consumptions and companies’ profits companies are affected, leading to a possible economic recession.”

Valerio Bruno — researcher in politics

“… inflation at these levels is a cause for concern …”

“Labor market conditions are improving but tempestuous, and the pandemic continues to threaten life and economic activity. The rapid reopening of the economy has brought a sharp advance in inflation. These are challenging times for the public. The dynamics of inflation are complex, and inflation can be assessed from a number of diverse perspectives, including the absence of inflation pressures; moderating inflation in high inflation items; wages; and long-term inflation expectations. Businesses and consumers widely report upward pressure on prices and wages. Inflation at these levels is a cause for concern. This assessment is a critical and ongoing one as we continue to monitor inflation data against each of these perspectives.

Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India

*[An earlier version of this article was published by .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Risk Posed by Global Inflation appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Gravitational Pull to the Right

As of February 2020, across Germany, approximately  pupils attended the 254 state-recognized Waldorf schools, whose curricula originate in an anthroposophical worldview. According to the Anthroposophical Society, the Waldorf pedagogy system, which was developed by the Austrian spiritualist in the early 20^th century, “ways of recognizing and exploring the supersensible-spiritual world that exists in the sensory-material world. This ‘spiritual science’ sees itself as a new approach to a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of nature and man.”

German Pharmacies at the Heart of an Anti-Racism Debate

READ MORE

The behind Waldorf schools is a “developmentally appropriate, experiential, and academically-rigorous approach to education.” Compared to the pressure to perform in state-run schools, the goal is to strengthen individual responsibility as well as creative, practical and social skills. Another difference lies in self-administration by parents and teachers of a “hierarchically organized external control of the state schools.”&�Բ�����;

Through close personal ties with teachers, parents can actively influence everyday school life according to their with fewer interventions of internal school control bodies compared to state schools. Hence, the self-administration model makes independent schools to infiltration by far-right actors and conspiracy theorists. According to Ansgar Martins, a religious studies scholar at Frankfurt University, this structural weakness is by the “pronounced anthroposophical inclination toward conspiracy theories” of Waldorf schools that stems from Steiner’s original teachings.

Steiner held a developmental, esoteric and essentially view of humanity that saw the world divided into superior and inferior races, exemplified by countless discriminatory statements against Jewish and especially people: “How can a Negro or an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? … The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nonsense that it now plays such a large role in Europe.”

These remarks are joined by Steiner’s pseudoscientific conception of the physical and intellectual superiority of the white race, reminiscent of the Nazi-era Volkstum concept according to which humanity reached its developmental endpoint in the : “If the blue-eyed and blond-haired people were to die out, people would become increasingly stupid unless they developed a kind of cleverness which is independent of blondness. … The white race is the future race, is the spirit-creating race.”

According to Germany’s Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, these “are to be regarded as particularly serious, since they are by no means random products or racist stereotypes caused by the spirit of the times. Rather, they are to be seen as manifestations of a specifically Steinerian esoteric racial science.” In the Stuttgart Declaration of 2007, the Association of Independent Waldorf Schools “any racist or nationalist appropriation of their pedagogy.” Nevertheless, this declaration did little to prevent attracting far-right conspiracy theorists even before the pandemic.

Far-Right Infiltration

In 2013, the managing director of a Waldorf school in the German town of Rendsburg was dismissed because of connections to the far-right (Citizens of the Reich) movement. He attracted attention by distributing leaflets in the school that “the Federal Republic of Germany … is not a state, but the managing legal advisor of a state simulation [is]. There is no de jure and de facto state of the Federal Republic of Germany.” 

The ��𾱳������ü������� is a heterogeneous movement that, referring to the historical German Reich, rejects the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal system, thus denying legitimacy to democratically elected representatives. A small proportion of the ��𾱳������ü������� movement is made up of , but the anti-state and conspiracy theory tenets of the entire scene facilitate a connection to anti-Semitic narratives that are central to the far-right domain.

At another Waldorf school in the German town of , a teacher taught unchecked for 20 years before his connections to ethno-nationalist right-wing extremist groups became known. Even before Wolf-Dieter Schröppe became a teacher, he maintained contacts with veteran Nazis, including the war criminal Erich Priebke — the man responsible for the massacre of 335 people as a captain in the and sentenced to life in prison. It took more than four months before the school terminated Schröppe’s employment contract, partly because some colleagues spoke out in his support.

In 2015, these incidents prompted the Association of Independent Waldorf Schools to publish a  conceding that the anthroposophy-based Waldorf pedagogy has a “great attraction” for the right-wing extremist conspiracy theorists, specifically for the ��𾱳������ü�������.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, Waldorf anthroposophy again garnered attention. To this day, Steiner’s worldview translates into a greater vaccine skepticism in Germany as a whole and in Waldorf schools in particular due to public acceptance and influence of anthroposophy. Underlying Steiner’s philosophy is the dangerous belief that diseases serve a  purpose by stimulating child development and making amends for mistakes in past lives.

Hence, over the last decades, vaccine skepticism has itself in lower in Waldorf schools, resulting in regular measles outbreaks. In this respect, an incident at a school in the city of  came as no surprise when 117 COVID-19 cases were recorded and more than 50 forged medical certificates were discovered exempting students and teachers from wearing a mask.

At a Waldorf school in the Bavarian town of Landsberg, a father who is both a doctor and a homeopath issued certificates to families of other students to circumvent mandatory mask-wearing, people who choose to do so as “mask hypochondriacs.” At a demonstration against COVID-19 measures, he showed the indictable Hitler salute that resulted in criminal charges.

The Bavarian Ministry of Education  these incidents are not isolated cases. Mask exemption certificates were seven times more likely to be issued at Bavarian Waldorf schools than at state schools. Nevertheless, many Waldorf parents show resolve against COVID-19 deniers and far-right activities. According to the mobile counseling service against right-wing extremism in Bavaria, Waldorf parents “” reported similar incidents at schools during the pandemic.

COVID-19 Denier Schools

To evade resistance at state but also independent schools and shield children from COVID-19 measures, some parents and teachers went a step further, founding their own learning initiatives and so-called supplementary schools. Insights into the network groups behind those supplementary schools reveal political affinities not only with the ��𾱳������ü������� but with another the far-right esoteric movement.

In , Bavaria, an elementary and middle school teacher founded a (Lateral Thinkers) school to reflect the movement’s pandemic skepticism. More than 50 pupils were taught here by parents and educators, including herbalists, music teachers and shamans. On advertising leaflets, the school falsely claimed to be located on Russian territory so that German law would not be applicable.

The school principal was active in networks spreading far-right esoteric ideas of the movement, a decentralized conspiracy group of far-right esotericists and settlers, based on the protagonist of the “Anastasia” fantasy novel series by Russian author Vladimir Megre. According to sociologist Matthias Quent, the  “transport cultural racism and anti-Semitism. These are ideological patterns that we also know from National Socialism. According to them, modern society is doomed, and people must retreat to the native soil or family estates.”

Connections to the Anastasia movement also existed in the newly founded Bauernhofschule (farm school) in the state of Hesse, which was registered as a supplementary school. Hesse’s school  enables parents to establish schools with scant bureaucratic hurdles as long as they supplement, not replace state curricula. According to the German state of Hesse’s public broadcaster, HR, Telegram chat transcripts revealed that the school operators to teach children how to keep animals, grow vegetables and live in harmony with nature. Nevertheless, the chat was inundated with extremist, anti-Semitic views from the ��𾱳������ü������� and Anastasia movements.

Even Holocaust denial — a criminal offense in Germany — received indifferent or approving reactions in the chats. The ideological connections of the Bauernhofschule reach as far as the fringes of the QAnon movement, as Martin Laker’s membership in the group suggests. Laker is an active member of the Anastasia movement and runs his own online platform where he spreads QAnon myths.

Underestimating the Problem

Germany’s political establishment has been slow in reacting to the growing problem. While the authorities are taking action against the newly founded supplementary schools, including enforced closures due to a lack of permits, there is still no sign yet of German politicians taking the danger posed by far-right anthroposophists seriously enough.

In January 2021, the Green Party’s national parliamentary group issued a asking what connections between right-wing extremist opponents of the COVID-19 measures and anthroposophical groups are known to the German government and how it assesses “the potential danger in this regard, given the fact that anthroposophy in Germany maintains a far-reaching network of companies, foundations, and public institutions.” The answer: “The Federal Government has no knowledge of this.” 

This rection is particularly disappointing considering the fight against right-wing extremism has gained political traction in recent years due to record high of politically motivated crimes by right-wing extremists. In 2020, the government published a substantial  of measures accompanied by a 100-page final  on combating right-wing extremism and racism the following year. According to the report, programs to prevent extremism in state schools are to be promoted more vigorously but fail to mention the right-wing extremist slant of anthroposophical groups and independent schools.

It remains to be seen whether the new government under the leadership of Angela Merkel’s successor Olaf Scholz will turn its eye to this blind spot. There seems to be no lack of will on the part of Scholz’s fellow party member and the new minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser, who at her first public appearance in the new role that “A particular concern of mine will be to combat the greatest threat currently facing our free democratic basic order, right-wing extremism.” 

The threat posed by far-right conspiracy theories and fake news might have only entered the public consciousness with the triumph of social media platforms. But conspiracy theories don’t germinate in a vacuum. Instead, often far-reaching causes are behind their emergence. In Germany, the societal impact of widespread anthroposophic views, promoted in state-approved institutions like the Waldorf schools, is one of the many causes that deserve increased critical, not at least political, attention.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post German Far-Right Conspiracy Theorists Step Up Attempts to Undermine Schools appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Although South Korea has reduced its prior strict , the percentage of critically ill patients is less than the country’s last peak in December 2021. The key question now is what the South Korean public thinks about the government’s COVID-19 response.

Getting the Public Behind the Fight on Misinformation

READ MORE

South Korea’s 2020 national assembly election was internationally praised for balancing ease of voting amid pandemic restrictions and provided a blueprint for other countries, with President Moon Jae-in’s administration largely praised for its efficient response to the pandemic. South Korea even allowed citizens who have tested positive to cast a ballot at the polls once they , even if voting had officially ended. 

However, with cases rising in late 2021, evaluations of the Moon administration’s handling have soured, although still hovering around 40% — the  in the country’s democratic history for an outgoing president and similar to his vote share in 2017. Yet Yoon and the Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung, both polling  in the run-up to the election,  to outline any pandemic response plan until November, when there was already a shortage of hospital beds — likely a result of the government’s “living with COVID” plan. 

Similarly, minor candidates have not presented clear COVID-19 policies. Even beyond the “living with COVID” strategies, candidates have not shared concrete plans to build back infrastructure after the public health crisis. 

To understand South Korean evolving perceptions of COVID-19 policies, we conducted a pre-election web survey of 945 South Koreans on February 18-22 via Macromill Embrain using quota sampling on gender, region and age. We asked respondents to evaluate on a five-point Likert scale the following statement: “I am satisfied with the South Korean government’s response to the coronavirus �dzܳٲ����𲹰�.”

We found, at best, mixed support for the government’s response, with overall disagreement outpacing agreement — 43.6% versus 35.8%. As before, perceptions deviate on party identification, with supporters of the ruling Democratic Party (DP) largely satisfied with the response (64.8%), while supporters of the main conservative party, the PPP, are largely dissatisfied (71.4%). 

Supporters of the two smaller parties, the progressive Justice Party and the center-right People’s Party, showed responses that were more mixed, perhaps because candidates had not emphasized COVID-19 policies in campaign rhetoric. Regression analysis finds that women and older respondents are more supportive of COVID-19 policies, while after controlling for age, gender, education, income and political ideology, supporters of the DP were still more likely to evaluate pandemic policies favorably while PPP supporters were less likely to do so. 

Noting this partisan divergence, we next wanted to identify whether views on COVID policy may have indirectly influenced support for one candidate over another. Regression analysis finds that even after controlling for demographic factors and party identification, satisfaction with COVID-19 policies negatively corresponds with voting for Yoon and positively for Lee. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

However, we also found that views of COVID-19 policies largely correspond with evaluations of President Moon’s job performance, questioning whether these measures were driving evaluations of Moon or whether perceptions now may simply be picking up sentiments regarding Moon irrespective of the actual policies. Further analysis shows that including evaluations of Moon’s performance in our earlier statistical models results in the COVID-19 evaluation failing to reach statistical significance. 

Whereas COVID-19 policies  Moon Jae-in’s party in 2020 win a clear majority in the national assembly, our evidence suggests evaluations now may have contributed to an anti-incumbency vote even as both of the major candidates lack clear policy prescriptions related to the pandemic. Regardless, President-elect Yoon will need to address a changing COVID-19 environment amid a fatigued and divided Korean public.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COVID-19 Policies Carry Implications for South Korea’s Presidential Election appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The PCR test is the gold standard for determining if a person has COVID-19. It’s a very good test that gives us the yes-or-no binary information that we value so much for making decisions. Unfortunately, the test is not always readily available and it’s also expensive. And timing is critical. If you take the test too soon after you are infected, the virus may not have yet traveled to your nose where the sample is taken, and thus the result may be a false negative — you have COVID but the test indicates you don’t. Also, it often takes time in a laboratory to process the results — will you isolate or carry on while you’re waiting?

COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle

READ MORE

Finally, what would prompt you to get a COVID test? Perhaps some event prompts you or requires a test by policy, but otherwise, you might take a test because you feel sick. If so, you already know you may be infectious. In that case, a positive COVID test merely confirms what you already suspect, and you normally get that confirmation a couple of days too late to do any good. Despite our heavy reliance on testing, it’s not as simple or as timely as we would like for deciding when to isolate.

We’ve had another way to separate the healthy from the sick during the COVID-19 pandemic: symptoms. For example, if you have a fever, then you may be infectious. But temperature-based screening has not been very effective at all, and a big reason why is that the US government has historically defined fever as 100.4°F (38°C) or above. If a person’s body temperature is 100.3°F, then according to the government, that person does not have a fever. Does that make sense?

Unfortunately, one of the distinguishing characteristics of COVID is the tendency of many infected people to have mild or even unnoticeable symptoms, including only slightly elevated body temperature, below 100.4°F. So, the government’s definition of “fever,” although simple and binary, has only confused the situation. Some people who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 took their temperature, found it to be below 100.4°F and assumed they did not have a fever. So, they carried on with normal day-to-day activities, often infecting others. Temperature-based screening systems typically use the government’s 100.4°F fever threshold, and, as a result, failed to prevent entry by many infected persons. Relying on the government’s 100.4°F fever definition has contributed to the spread of COVID-19. Where did this government standard come from, how can it be improved, and why has the US resisted change?

Origins of 100.4°F

In 1868, a German physician, psychiatrist and medical professor named Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich published a describing his assessment that normal body temperature is relatively constant, varies from 97.9°F to 99.3°F (36.6°C to 37.4°C), and averages 98.6°F (37°C). He found that patients with a disease often exhibited a symptom of fever that he found to average at or above 100.4°F. He based these findings on 1 million temperature measurements for 25,000 patients.

For the time, this scientific result was quite remarkable, and it changed medicine forever because it gave physicians the newfound ability to objectively assess the presence and severity of many diseases. However, Wunderlich’s patients were mostly German rather than being from different cultures, his thermometer may have been less accurate than those we have today, and people are a little now than they were then.

These are reasons to suspect that Wunderlich’s ideas of normal body temperature and fever are somewhat different today than they were in the mid-1800s. But, to be fair, Wunderlich observed differences in temperature based on many variables when healthy, and he advised that temperature averages have many “shades of gray.” In particular, Wunderlich noted that even smaller rises in temperature are cause for concern, and that there is no definite temperature threshold over which a person transitions from health to sickness. He said that any “elevation of the axillary [under the arm] temperature above 99.5°F (37.5°C) or any depression below 97.2°F (36.5°C) is always very suspicious.” He added: “But even when every precaution has been taken in making the observations, it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line to indicate by temperature the exact limits of health and disease.”

Today, clinical research suggests that Wunderlich’s findings should be , that the normal temperature range by the individual, and that there is no arbitrary fever threshold that works for everyone. Yet, the US government and some medical experts still regard 98.6°F as normal body temperature and 100.4°F or above as a fever. For COVID019, this is simple, easy and, for most people, wrong.

Improving on 100.4°F as a Fever Threshold

If you’re interested in seeing if 100.4°F is an appropriate fever threshold for you, try taking your temperature. Use a normal, digital, under-the-tongue thermometer for at least 60 seconds. Make sure you haven’t consumed anything for 15 minutes — a hot or cold drink or food will change your measurement. Keep your mouth closed during the reading. Assuming you are healthy, if your temperature is below 98.6°F, then it’s a good bet that your fever threshold is under 100.4°F.

If you were to take your temperature every day, preferably in the morning when you first wake, you would see that your normal temperature varies in a range of one degree or so. For example, in the image below is the normal temperature data for a person we’ll call JRDA5.

From this graph, we can see that JRDA5’s normal body temperature varies from 96.6°F to 97.4°F when healthy, and you can expect your own normal temperature to vary also.

In modern medicine, a fever is to be a temperature elevation above a person’s normal range. This definition of fever is more accurate than an arbitrary fever threshold like 100.4°F that is based on population averages and data from 150 years ago. A person’s normal temperature range depends on many such as age, sex, nutrition and level of activity, and so different people will have different fever thresholds.

Almost always, a fever threshold defined as above your normal temperature range is below 100.4°F. Therefore, if we use this new definition, there is significant potential for identifying sick people using temperature-based screening. Relying on 100.4°F is insufficient for identifying mild, pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19.

Why the Government Has Resisted Changing the Definition of “Fever”

A pandemic is not the best time for complicated methods. Perhaps the US government chose to stick with 100.4°F for simplicity and consistency. But, in this pandemic, nothing has been simple. We’ve learned to take advantage of vaccines that need boosting, tests that need repeating and symptoms that keep changing. People can figure out their normal temperature range and their own personal fever threshold if that means effective screening. Having a fever or not is still binary, even if we define fever as above your normal range. It’s still pretty simple.

Elevated temperature is not definitive proof you have COVID-19. We all like certainty, and the PCR test will remain the gold standard for COVID. But we don’t need certainty to make a decision to isolate. A fever should prompt isolation, even though it may not be caused by COVID. The next step is to get tested and then wait for the results. We can stop the pandemic if people isolate if they get a fever. Fever is the most timely indicator we may be infectious.

Asymptomatic cases may not exhibit any elevated temperature, so we cannot depend on temperature screening anyway. It’s possible that there are some people infected with COVID-19 who do not have any fever, perhaps because their immune system doesn’t work at all. However, we know that many asymptomatic cases are accompanied by elevated body temperature lower than 100.4°F. We can catch those people using the more correct definition of fever. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

People hate change and the government is no different. It takes a lot to pass federal legislation and to modify federal regulations. But the government’s 100.4°F fever threshold isn’t working. The effort to change will help us control the pandemic.

How Redefining “Fever” Helps

Since the omicron variant of COVID-19 emerged, we’ve seen increased demand for testing, with many people standing in line for hours waiting to get a test. In the United States, the government has been ordering more tests to address the shortages. However, the demand for testing can evidently overrun our testing resources. By using a more accurate definition of “fever,” people will have a better idea of when they need to get tested. Today, about 75% of tests come back negative. We have clinical that fever and other readily available health data can predict test results. By redefining “fever,” we can make testing more efficient.

We can also monitor our health every day, conveniently, in our own homes. We can’t afford to give everyone a daily PCR test, and hardly anyone wants that anyway. In contrast, it’s easy, fast and affordable to take our temperature every day. It’s a smart, safe way to help keep our friends and family safe and do our part to fight the pandemic. A lot of people would self-monitor if they knew it would help.

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 evidently mutates easily, giving rise to variants, and we don’t expect that to change. It’s possible there are already variants that are not caught by current tests. Redefining “fever” can help identify cases that PCR tests miss. So far, fever is a symptom of all variants. More broadly, fever is a symptom of many other infectious illnesses, such as the flu. Isolating when you have a fever is appropriate for new variants and other viruses to help prevent the spread and keep everyone safer.

It’s high time for the government to redefine “fever” as body temperature above a person’s normal, healthy range. With a more accurate definition, temperature-based screening can be a powerful new tool for fighting the pandemic — and one well-suited to use by anyone, at home and in time to make a difference. Americans want to help fight the pandemic. It’s about time the government helps them do just that.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Great Fever Misconception appeared first on 51�Թ�.

COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle

READ MORE

The costs of the pandemic are being borne disproportionately by poorer categories of society since low-income households are more exposed to health risks and more likely to experience job losses and sharp declines in wellbeing. At the same time, the pandemic has been a boon for the wealthy. In response to the economic collapse in March and April 2020, central banks injected enormous amounts of liquidity into financial markets, keeping asset prices high while economic activity slowed down. Some of the biggest winners were those with high stakes in the technology sector.

Against this background, Kara Tan Bhala, the founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics, suggests using the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. “T��� Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality,” she says. “Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil).”

But how do we tackle inequality? According to economist Etienne Perrot, “the adequate responses must … address both property [ownership] rights through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition.” Other policy responses may include “reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements,” as Andrew Cornford points out.

To implement these policies, the first condition is that inequalities should be on the political agenda, which is not the case everywhere, as professor Yuriy Temirov illustrates with the case of Ukraine. But policy measures alone are not sufficient to reduce inequalities. They have to be complemented by a cultural, transformative process for learning to “row together” (Fratelli tutti), as Domingo Sugranyes of the Pablo VI Foundation says, to increase our socioeconomic resilience.

By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski

Note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: Inequalities seem to accelerate in every part of the world due to COVID-19 and other issues. Unlike the climate debate, in social issues, we do not have a proper threshold for catastrophe. This leads to a possible overestimation of social resilience and leaves the issue as such largely untackled. Drawing on the particularities of your region or on your area of expertise, what should/can be done?

“… perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities … ”

“T��� pandemic only reveals perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities. Pope Francis had alerted the international community as soon as the first vaccines appeared. The causes of these glaring social inequalities mix the institutional side through the right of property, the politics increasingly tempted by nationalism, and the spiritual bathed in the materialistic individualism of modernity. The adequate responses must therefore address both property right through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition, distinguishing between the elite and the financial success.”

Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)

“… the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country is to economic upheaval… ”

“In the global climate crisis, anything over 2°C above the average pre-industrial temperature leads to unmitigated disaster. In a similar vein, I suggest we use the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. The Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality. Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil). Of course, these watershed levels need further research, but it would be enlightening to have an idea of the income inequality thresholds of social disaster.”

Kara Tan Bhala —president and founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics

“… public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe … ”

“Despite its importance, GDP as an indicator should no longer be the only way we measure economic success. Fairer economy would mean tackling health inequalities and getting to grips with issues that prevent individuals from certain ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds meeting their full potential. We need to embrace means of improving wellbeing and advancing social mobility, build on promoting social inclusion as well as addressing poverty. New plans must be put in place to achieve a more sustainable economy in a more equal and socially just society, and this cannot just be an aspiration — it must be seen as critical to our survival. In recognizing the profound challenges, public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe. The coronavirus is still alive, and risk lies in whether this will be possible.”

Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

“… rowing together (Fratelli tutti) …”

“I don’t see a theoretical answer to this extremely vast question. My reaction can only be in terms of (modest) action-oriented commitment: ‘rowing together’ (Fratelli tutti), i.e., trying to identify social projects of high solidarity value, which help people to emerge from poverty on their own capabilities, and look for means — money, goods, time — in order to increase the scope and impact of such communities. We need business and people in business to get much more decidedly involved in these kinds of projects. This is, among many other organizations, what we try to do with (VSF International) and . Everybody is welcome to join.”

Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group

“… an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax … ”

“With the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap between the rich and the poor, in particular the income gap, has increased as Pope Francis, among others, has stated on several occasions. It is undeniable that the trend had already started several decades ago. However, with COVID-19, inequalities have reached record levels that do necessitate strong internal reforms. If no actions will be taken, such as an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax, the possibility of social turmoil and unrest will be inevitable. In Italy, political parties are literally unable to agree and set the slightest kind of agenda for a proper patrimoniale (wealth tax or asset tax), preferring to keep the country in an extremely dangerous status quo.”

Valerio Bruno —researcher in politics

“… fiscal measures, transparency, control of cross-border capital movements … ”

“Much attention has been given to the wealth as well as the income dimension of the inequalities — the associated rents of the minority at one end, and the much lower and often stagnating incomes of the remainder. The latter comprises not only the working class, but also parts of the middle class. Much commentary has also concerned the opportunities to hide wealth — and thus reduce tax exposure — provided by cross-border financial liberalization and offshore financial centers. Policy responses to the inequalities should include fiscal measures, including improved taxation of the wealth of individuals and firms, reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements, and changes in legal definitions designed to facilitate controls over firms’ domestic and cross-border access to different economic activities and industries and thus to restrict regulatory arbitrage and opaqueness in firms’ operations.”

Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services

“… imaginative countermeasures of income … ”

“T��� fundamental dynamic of any economy is summed up in the dictum, ‘To those who have shall be given and they shall have more than they can use, and from those who have not shall be taken even what they have.’ COVID also has set it in motion. Where the effects are beneficial — e.g., the reduction in travel by air — it should be encouraged. Further good news is that the deprivation inflicted by COVID on the deprived has been met — at least in places like Geneva — not by the usual blame, scorn and exclusion, but by imaginative countermeasures of income support and new forms of communication like Zoom.”

Edouard Dommen — specialist in economic ethics, former university professor and researcher at the UNCTAD and president of Geneva’s Ecumenical Workshop in Theology.

“… first we have to think about youth … ”

“T��� social deprivation problems are persistent, and this fact routinizes somehow their existence and hinders the definition of a social resilience threshold. Differentiated priorities emerged in South/Eastern Europe after the successive waves of crisis, but first we have to think about youth since no country can sustain without giving hope to its members through a micro/macro strategy that includes: i) an immediate recovery plan with emergency income support for the vulnerable groups; ii) long-lasting work-related policies and investments on youth employment (work-based training, tax reliefs for innovative enterprises); iii) strategies of sharing the risks with interregional cooperation and job retention schemes; and iv) protection and support of childhood integrity (tackling invisible work and poverty with financial benefits for low-income families and proper child/health-care, along with future-centered support, such as home learning environment and early schooling interventions).”

Christos Tsironis —associate professor of social theory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

“… in Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon … ”

“In Ukraine, social inequality has two primary sources: the legacy of the ‘socialist’ totalitarian past and deformed oligarchic capitalism. At the same time, the initial period of transformation with the exacerbation of the problems of social inequality has dragged on dangerously. From 1991 to 2014, the domination of the interests of oligarchic groups over national interests acted as a brake on reforms. After the Revolution of Dignity, there was a political will to implement unpopular reforms, but they had to be carried out in conditions of the population’s fatigue from reforms, in the realities of Russian aggression. The promotion of reforms by servants of the people is complicated by populism. In Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon. At this stage of transformation, this issue cannot be a priority; the authorities do not have a correct understanding of the hierarchy of priorities, and society’s perceptions of equality/inequality are distorted by collectivism and paternalism.

Yuriy Temirov —associate professor, dean of the Faculty of History and International Relations at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University

*[An earlier version of this article was published by  before the Ukraine War began.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Rowing Together to Tackle Inequality appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since the Start of the Pandemic, Americans Are Drinking Too Much

READ MORE

But this new relaxation of standards might be a problem when it comes to posture. The usual office equipment people relied upon didn’t come home with them at the beginning of the lockdown. Futons and laptops ergonomic chairs and desktop computers for weeks, then months and now years. Working from a laptop computer is one of the worst for one’s back. Working from a sofa might be the worst. 

From Back Problems to Developing an App

Three years ago, I suffered from spinal disc subluxation. This isn’t typical for a teen. In fact, it’s so rare that, in a on the prevalence of subluxation, people under the age of 65 were excluded because researchers didn’t see them as a statistically significant population. As I waited in line for care, I talked to other patients who explained to me how much my problem might be caused by poor posture.

Movies like “My Fair Lady” and even “Pretty Woman” taught us that there’s one correct posture. It’s a classist and sexist idea that someone has to be in on the polite secret that there’s one right way to sit or stand. But no one-size-fits-all optimizes health. Rather, everyone has their own correct posture. 

Because of my experience, I developed an app called whereby users can take a photo of their backs and see if their posture is optimal. It’s not a replacement for medical advice, of course, but it’s a nudge to get people to see that how they’re sitting and standing might not be up to snuff — for their particular bodies. 

Balancing a book on one’s head Eliza Doolittle-style seems petty next to a global pandemic, but posture isn’t a trifling concern. About of a country’s population will develop lower back pain in their lives and suboptimal posture contributes to it. It’s the number-one of disability worldwide. The way chronic back pain impacts quality of life makes it a real threat. 

And that threat has actually been magnified by the conditions imposed by the global health crisis. Between shifting all activity to our home spaces, the challenges to our mood (there’s an undeniable link between posture and — change one and the other follows) and a deterioration of our behavioral standards, people aren’t attuned to the same details they once were. We’re so off our game that some workers may have to “” politeness when offices open back up. Virtual work/school may benefit many, but regardless of one’s appreciation of the home office or school, we must admit that we don’t act the same when we work or study outside of the office or classroom. We get lax.

Are You Sitting Upright?

No one has studied this specifically, but I would venture that posture has deteriorated population-wise during the pandemic. It’s a mere matter of common sense. As the world crumbles, people likely aren’t sitting and standing ramrod straight. In the scrum for masks, tests and toilet paper, posture wasn’t a characteristic that made a person more likely to survive. And the invitation to slump and relax was too good to pass up. 

It can be alarmist to predict spin-off epidemics. Between anxiety and to to sleep to substance , the COVID-19 pandemic caused a cascade of health problems. It’s unclear how we stay out of a permanent state of panic.  

But panic prods prevention, and prevention is good politics. And back pain, a preventable chronic condition, costs us a lot of money every year. It’s the second-highest of health burden in China. It also costs $67.5 and $94.1 billion globally. It’s also the leading cause of sick , the days when employees accomplish little to nothing, whether they’re in the office or not. It’s the sixth-largest on the health economy in the United States, and it causes of billions of pounds in lost productivity in the United Kingdom.

Work From Home and Remote Learning

Neither working from home nor learning remotely is over. As of September 2021, of full-time employees in the US were working from home. Now, of them want to stay put. The city of Flint, Michigan will be schooling its students for the near future. Even without pandemic risks, some school districts have come to lean on distance learning because of school . That means we will probably continue to cut ourselves slack with how we sit and stand. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

In China, 45% of offer work-from-home situations. Around 57% of employees like a hybrid model of three days in the office and two at home. Students in the city of Xi’an were allowed back to in-person school in January after another lockdown. Schools throughout China are preparing for the eventuality of to distance learning, if not for COVID-19, then for another reason. The preparation comes as most parents in China realized that the initial switch to remote school was implemented quickly, which meant that education over virtual portals was less than ideal.

At-home employees and remote-based students can buy better computers, desks and chairs if they can afford them. But none of that will help if they don’t know what position works best for them. Just being aware that posture is at risk is important for long-term health. 

Even a return to the workplace or school doesn’t guarantee that people will sit upright. And some medical experts that posture and back pain aren’t connected. My experience tells me otherwise. 

I don’t think that differing opinions on posture and back pain should be enough to convince people not to take their posture more seriously in a post-pandemic world. My pain was so bad that I often curled up in pain and I suffered for months. People should pay more attention to their posture as we climb out of this terrible time. There’s no reason to risk feeling even worse one day in the future when we’re supposed to be feeling better. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Back Pain the Next Epidemic? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We invite readers to join us by submitting their suggestions of words and expressions that deserve exploring, with or without original commentary. To submit a citation from the news and/or provide your own short commentary, send us an email.

March 10: True Toll

In this month of March, the world is understandably somewhat reluctant to commemorate the second anniversary of the moment when the nations of the world unanimously declared COVID-19 a pandemic and began their largely concerted actions of lockdown. The story that unfolded afterward included a variety of traumatic episodes, including speculation about a diversity of possible preventive and curative treatments, sporadic outbreaks of revolt against enforced public policies and a scientifically successful campaign to produce effective vaccines. Despite their promise, the effectiveness of those vaccines nevertheless proved to be far from absolute.

Pfizer’s Noble Struggle Against the Diabolical Jared Kushner

READ MORE

A group of over 100 public health, medical and epidemiology experts, after assessing the global results, has chosen this second anniversary to react and call into question the decisions taken by governments presumably capable of doing more. From the very early days, the scientific experts knew that, given the capacity of the coronavirus to mutate over time, any complication or holdup related to manufacturing and global distribution could undermine the entire logic of vaccines. They should have known that the biggest complication would come from a political and economic system that works according to principles that make it impervious to understanding the logic of a virus.

On March 9, the group of experts addressed a letter to the Biden administration to express their frustration with a situation that has evolved very slowly and largely inadequately outside the wealthy nations. This is not the first time concerned experts have urged “the administration to share Covid-19 vaccine technology and increase manufacturing around the world,” Politico . For the past two years, they have regularly been rebuffed, as governments preferred to pat themselves on the back for the short-term efforts they were making to protect their own populations, while creating the conditions that would allow the virus to mutate and gain strength elsewhere before returning to provoke new research and the promise of further commercial exploitation with boosters and new treatments.

Principles vs. Ideals

The experts should have realized by now that there is a principle at work that overrides every other scientific or medical consideration. It was established early on by the coterie established around Bill Gates, big pharma executives and other important influencers sharing their industrial mindset. It can all be traced back to the wisdom of Milton Friedman, who loved to repeat the slogan, “T���re’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The principle is self-explanatory: In a competitive world, the idea of sharing simply cannot compete with the idea of competing. If you can’t afford lunch, you’ll just have to go without eating. That works when the only outcome is seeing people starve. It doesn’t work when the effects of their starvation are somehow transmitted back to those who have a permanent place at the banquet.

US culture has cultivated the idea that life itself is a competitive race for advantage and the promotion of self-interest stands as the highest of virtues. Health like wealth must play by the rules of the competitive game. That same culture insists heavily on a form of discipline based on the idea of respecting “principles,” which it sometimes perversely confounds with “laws of nature.” The divinely ordained requirement to solve all problems through competition is a prominent one, but not the only one. 

The problem with such principles that are taken to be universal laws is that once you believe it is a law, you no longer need to reflect on its appropriateness or assess its very real effects. We are witnessing an example of it today in the Ukraine conflict. The United States has invoked the defense of the sacred principle of “sovereignty,” reformulated as the right of a nation to determine its own foreign policy, including the choice to join a distant empire. That may be a principle, but is it a law? Insisting on it instead of reflecting and debating the question has provoked a disastrous and increasingly out of control war that, like the COVID-19 pandemic, has already had severe unintended knock-on effects, wreaking havoc on the global economy as well as destruction in Ukraine itself. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Every culture must realize that its own principles may not be universally applicable, that they may not be perceived by others to have the status of laws. Any attempt to apply them as universal truths may cause immense human suffering. And that reveals the very dimension of the problem the health experts are pointing to. A potentially criminal complacency exists when the suffering caused by the inflexible application of the principle is directed toward others, at the same time when the purveyors of the principle are taking measures to protect their society and their environment. The principle of Ukraine’s sovereignty is already damaging not just Ukraine itself and now Russia, thanks to the application of the principle, but also Europe, the Middle East and Africa, which will be cut off from vital supplies of energy, food and fertilizer.

For the past two years, the concerted defense of the ideal of competition by the pharmaceutical companies in their supposed combat to defeat COVID-19 has clearly aggravated the effects of a pandemic that might have been contained if the idea of sharing had been elevated to the status of principle. But sharing doesn’t deserve to be regarded as a principle. For Americans, it is based on soft ideas like empathy and compassion rather than hard reasoning about what might be financially profitable.

Reflecting on two years of struggle, the group of experts noted “that the development of U.S. vaccines was largely successful, bringing protection to the public in record time,” Politico reports. That’s the good news. And now for the bad news: “But getting shots in arms in low- and middle-income countries has been a ‘failure.’”

Out for the Count

No precise statistics can account for the difference between the damage actually done by COVID-19 and what might have happened had governments effectively managed the global response in the earlier phases of the pandemic. “T��� true toll of this failure will never be known,” the experts explain, “but at this point almost surely includes tens of millions of avoidable cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid.”

The “true toll” they cite reminds us of John Donne’s on the bells rung for the dying in a time of plague. The poet and dean of St Paul’s affirmed that “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Might we hope that 400 years after Donne wrote these words, pharmaceutical companies and politicians could, for once, take them to heart?

But there is yet another much more concrete  meaning of “toll,” as in “toll road.” It is the price humanity is expected to pay, in dollars and cents, to the pharmaceutical companies that have so diligently used their patents to protect their exclusive rights to exploit and enrich themselves thanks to the global potential for suffering of others.

The final and fundamentally political irony of this sad tale relates to the fact that to do what the experts insist needs doing requires “more funding from Congress.” At a time when prominent members of Congress have become obsessed by the threat of inflation, while at the same time unabashedly inflating military budgets and responding urgently to the “sacred” needs of NATO in times of peril, the likelihood that Congress might suddenly address a global problem it has avoided addressing for two years seems remote.

One of the experts, Gavin Yamey, suggests that COVID-19 “could follow the path of diseases like HIV or tuberculosis: become well controlled in wealthier countries but continue to wreak havoc in poorer nations.” Geopolitics in this increasingly inegalitarian world appears to be following a trend of domestic demographics in the US, marked by the separating of society itself into two groups: the denizens of gated communities and the rabble, everyone else out there.

Why Monitoring Language Is Important

Language allows people to express thoughts, theories, ideas, experiences and opinions. But even while doing so, it also serves to obscure what is essential for understanding the complex nature of reality. When people use language to hide essential meaning, it is not only because they cynically seek to prevaricate or spread misinformation. It is because they strive to tell the part or the angle of the story that correlates with their needs and interests.

In the age of social media, many of our institutions and pundits proclaim their intent to root out “misinformation.” But often, in so doing, they are literally seeking to miss information.

Is there a solution? It will never be perfect, but critical thinking begins by being attentive to two things: the full context of any issue we are trying to understand and the operation of language itself. In our schools, we are taught to read and write, but, unless we bring rhetoric back into the standard curriculum, we are never taught how the power of language to both convey and distort the truth functions. There is a largely unconscious but observable historical reason for that negligence. Teaching establishments and cultural authorities fear the power of linguistic critique may be used against their authority.

Remember, 51�Թ�’s Language and the News seeks to sensitize our readers to the importance of digging deeper when assimilating the wisdom of our authorities, pundits and the media that transmit their knowledge and wisdom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Contradictory Musings of Biden’s Speculator of State

READ MORE

The Forbes article, an excerpt from Bourla’s book, “Moonshot,” ends with a moving story about how Pfizer boldly resisted the pressure of the evil Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who had no qualms about depriving the rest of the world — even civilized countries such as Canada and Japan — of access to the COVID-19 vaccine to serve the US in their stead.

“He insisted,” the good doctor explains, “that the U.S. should take its additional 100 doses before we sent doses to anyone else from our Kalamazoo plant. He reminded me that he represented the government, and they could ‘take measures’ to enforce their will.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Take measures:

Go well beyond any measured response in an act of intimidation

Contextual Note

Bourla begins his narrative at the beginning, before the development of the vaccine, by asserting his company’s virtuous intentions and ethical credentials that would later be challenged by bureaucrats and venal politicians. “Vaccine equity was one of our principles from the start,” he writes. “Vaccine diplomacy, the idea of using vaccines as a bargaining chip, was not and never has been.”

Some readers may note that vaccine equity was only “one” of the principles. There were, of course, other more dominant ones, such as maximizing profit. But Bourla never mentions these other principles, instead offering a step-by-step narrative meant to make the reader believe that his focus was on minimizing profit. That, after all, is what a world afflicted by a raging and deadly pandemic might expect. A closer examination of the process Bourla describes as well as the very real statistics about vaccine distribution reveals that, on the contrary, Pfizer would never even consider minimizing profits. It simply is not in their DNA.

Bourla proudly describes the phases of his virtuous thinking. The CEO even self-celebrates his out-of-the-ordinary sense of marketing, serving to burnish the image not only of his company but of the entire pharmaceutical industry. “We had a chance,” he boasts, “to gain back our industry’s reputation, which had been under fire for the last two decades. In the U.S., pharmaceuticals ranked near the bottom of all sectors, right next to the government, in terms of reputation.”

Thanks to his capacity to tone down his company’s instinctive corporate greed, Bourla now feels he has silenced his firm’s if not the entire industry’s critics when he makes this claim, “No one could say that we were using the pandemic as an opportunity to set prices at unusually high levels.” Some might, nevertheless, make the justifiable claim that what they did was set the prices at “usually” high levels. A close look at Bourla’s description of how the pricing decisions were made makes it clear that Pfizer never veered from seeking “high levels,” whether usual or unusual, during a pandemic that required as speedy and universal a response as possible.

Thanks to a subtle fudge on vocabulary, Bourla turns Pfizer’s vice into a virtue. He writes that when considering the calculation of the price Pfizer might charge per dose, he rejected the standard approach that was based on a savant calculation of the costs to patients theoretically saved by the drug. He explains the “different approach” he recommended. “I told the team to bring me the current cost of other cutting-edge vaccines like for measles, shingles, pneumonia, etc.” But it was the price and not the cost he was comparing. When his team reported prices of “between $150 and $200 per dose,” he agreed “to match the low end of the existing vaccine prices.”

If Pfizer was reasoning, as most industries do, in terms of cost and not price, he would be calculating all the costs related to producing the doses required by the marketplace — in this case billions — and would have worked out the price on the basis of fixed costs, production and marketing costs plus margin. That would be the reasonable thing to do in the case of a pandemic, where his business can be compared to a public service and for which there is both a captive marketplace (all of humanity shares the need) and in which sales are based entirely on advanced purchase orders. That theoretically reduces marketing costs to zero.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

But Bourla wrote the book to paint Pfizer as a public benefactor and himself as a modern Gaius Maecenas, the patron saint of patrons. Once his narrative establishes his commitment to the cause of human health and the renunciation of greed, he goes into detail about his encounter with Kushner. After wrangling with the bureaucrats at Operation Warp Speed created to meet the needs of the population during a pandemic, Bourla recounts the moment “when President Trump’s son-in-law and advisor, Jared Kushner, called me to resolve the issue.” That is when Kushner, like any good mafia boss, evokes his intent to “take measures,” a threat the brave Bourla resists in the name of the health of humanity and personal honor.

That leads to the heartwarming, honor-saving denouement, the happy ending that Bourla calls a miracle. “Thankfully, our manufacturing team continued to work miracles, and I received an improved manufacturing schedule that would allow us to provide the additional doses to the U.S. from April to July without cutting the supply to the other countries.”

Historical Note

Investopedia up the reasoning of pharmaceuticals when pricing their drugs: “Ultimately, the main objective of pharmaceutical companies when pricing drugs is to generate the most revenue.” In the history of Western pharmacy, that has not always been the case. Until the creation of the pharmaceutical industrial sector in the late 19^th century, apothecaries, chemists and druggists worked in their communities to earn a living and like most artisans calculated their costs and their capacity for profit.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that, permitting large-scale investment in research and development that would have been impossible in an earlier age. But it also introduced the profit motive as the main driver of industrial strategy. What that meant is what we can see today. Pharmaceutical companies have become, as Albert Bourla himself notes, “ranked near the bottom of all sectors.” They exist for one reason: to make and accumulate profit. Industrial strategies often seek to prolong or extend a need for drugs rather than facilitate cures. Advising a company, Goldman Sachs famously asked, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The implied answer was “no.” The greatest fear of the commercial health industry is of a cure that “exhaust[s] the available pool of treatable patients.”

In any case, COVID-19 has served Pfizer handsomely and is continuing to do so. In late 2021, the Peoples Vaccine Alliance “that the companies behind two of the most successful COVID-19 vaccines —Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna— are making combined profits of $65,000 every minute.” Furthermore, they “have sold the majority of doses to rich countries, leaving low-income countries out in the cold. Pfizer and BioNTech have delivered less than one percent of their total vaccine supplies to low-income countries.”

At the beginning of the COVID-19 “project,” Bourla boasts, “I had made clear that return on investment should not be of any consideration” while patting himself on the back for focusing on the needs of the world. “In my mind, fairness had to come first.” With the results now in, he got his massive return on investment, while the world got two years and counting of a prolonged pandemic that will continue making a profit for Pfizer. At least he had the satisfaction of putting the ignoble Jared Kushner in his place.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Pfizer’s Noble Struggle Against the Diabolical Jared Kushner appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Canada’s Anti-Mask Movement Demands Liberty

READ MORE

Indeed, as the Canadian truck protests spread across the globe, the PPC is of particular relevance given that Bernier has been quick to visit the protesters and become a vocal defender of their actions, calling upon Canadians to defend their . Nevertheless, the PPC is also of interest for another reason, namely its detrimental impact in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections upon Canada’s more moderate/center-right Conservative Party. 

Consequently, two questions stand out from the growing significance of the PPC that have implications for fringe parties in general. First, could these parties ever evolve into mainstream political parties? Second, could they, as the Canada Guide , “‘spoil’ races in very close elections by pulling votes away from other mainstream parties”?

Context: Fringe Parties in Canada

Although there are currently five “major” political parties represented in the current Canadian House of Commons — the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Green Party of Canada — at the time of the 2021 election there were some 17 eligible federal political parties . These 17 are often referred to as “fringe” parties because they have not secured electoral success, their party membership is small, they often only promote a single issue, and their supporters tend to be few and far between. 

They can also be widely divergent. Some, such as the , are of a leftist political persuasion and have been in existence for a century. Others, such as the , have only been in existence for a short while and are of an extreme-right predisposition.

Nevertheless, labels such as “fringe” are open to debate. Indeed, the Green Party, for example, is theoretically the nation’s fifth major party. Yet at its height, it has only ever secured three seats in the Canadian Parliament in 2019 with 6.5% of the popular . Its parliamentary representation dropped to two seats in the 2021 election, with 2.3% of the national vote. In this context, it is that there is “no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a ‘fringe party.’�ĝ&�Բ�����;&�Բ�����;

In Canadian politics, it seems that success at the ballot box appears to be the nebulous cut-off point for differentiating between fringe and mainstream parties. The example of the Green Party is again illustrative of this, as it went from being a fringe party to being a major one. Yet the 2.3% that the Greens received in 2021 was less than the nearly 5% the PPC won that same year. The fact that a so-called major party received a smaller share of the vote than an ostensible fringe party testifies to the problematic nature of the term “fringe.” Furthermore, it implies that the PPC could morph into a mainstream political force. 

Radical Impact

However, it is the second question relating to pulling votes from mainstream parties that presents the crux of this cautionary tale. Following the creation of the Reform Party of Canada in 1987, some had that it had split the anti-Liberal vote on the moderate conservative right. The same outcome is true in Britain, where there “a widespread willingness among current Conservative Party members in Britain to countenance voting for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).”

In order to evaluate the importance of the PPC to the Canadian landscape, it is vital to look at the party’s electoral impact. In the 2019 federal election, the PPC achieved a mere 1.6% of the popular vote. However, analysis by CBC news  that “even with its dismal level of support — the PPC cost the Conservatives seven seats in the House of Commons by splitting the vote.”

Moreover, irrespective of the PPC’s election results, it is impressive that, in just over a year,  “managed to create a new federal political party, found candidates to run in all of Canada’s 338 federal electoral districts and participated in all the televised pre-election leaders’ debates.” If Bernier achieved all of this within 12 months, what can he achieve within 12 years? 

Although the PPC failed to win any seats in the 2021 federal election, the party’s share of the popular vote increased from 1.6% to 4.94%. The detrimental electoral significance of the PPC was recognized by the Conservative leader Erin O’Toole in the run-up to the . Direct personal communication with a source within the PPC further underlined the threat that the party’s “presence on the ballot may have cost the Conservatives about 21 ridings in this year’s election.”&�Բ�����;

Given the failure of O’Toole to win in 2021, an additional significant outcome of the emergence of the PPC is that the Conservative Party could face pressure to move further to the right in order to win a greater share of the popular vote. Indeed, O’Toole’s leadership position immediately came under threat by  elements within his own party on the grounds that he was too moderate. By February 2022, he was from the party’s leadership.

Although the PPC remains a so-called fringe party, this is not to deny its impact. It was responsible for sometimes splitting the center-right vote and contributing to the Liberal Party’s success, as well as now possibly helping to force the Conservative Party into a more radically right-wing . Indeed, some contenders for O’Toole’s now-vacant seat as party leader have also started to speak out in support of the . However, it is also worth noting that the PPC’s electoral impact might not necessarily be the beginning of a new trend. 

The COVID-19 pandemic presented Bernier with the opportunity to appeal to an outlier proportion of the population which, without the PPC, might not have had a sympathetic ear in Parliament — anti-vaxxers and anyone vehemently opposed to health measures instituted to contain the pandemic. Although the majority of Canada’s population champion vaccines, mask-wearing and similar public health measures, the fact that the PPC was the only political party opposed to vaccine passports allowed it to generate additional support from this cohort that for 8%-10% of the population. 

This support is further demonstrated by the fact that the PPC did best in those provinces with the lowest vaccination rates, namely Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The PPC’s anti-lockdown rhetoric and strong stance against Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s vaccine mandates were, therefore, partly responsible for its rise in the polls, as suggested by some academic experts who that “Historically, populism … tends to appear in times of crises.” 

Ideological Impacts

The PPC has not only had a tangible impact on Canadian politics, but also an ideological one. Canada has traditionally been as “immune to the outbreak of right-wing populism observed in other established western democracies.” That is, until now, as Republican figures such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump praise the actions of the Ottawa protesters and denounce Trudeau as a “.”&�Բ�����;

Bernier’s campaign manifestos of 2019 and 2021 also look similar to populist and nationalist counterparts elsewhere, namely UKIP and the under Donald Trump in the US. The , for instance, states its opposition to climate change policies (“Withdraw from the Paris Accord and abandon unrealistic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets”); commitment to end to Canada’s participation in global institutions (“Withdraw from all UN commitments”); and xenophobic resentment in its anti-immigration plans (“Substantially lower the total number of immigrants and refugees Canada accept every year”).

A noteworthy addition to the PPC’s 2021 manifesto that also has echoes of other nationalist/populist party positions is its consideration of race. In the lead-up to the 2021 federal election, the mainstream parties focused on the economic and political rights of indigenous peoples following the uncovering of unmarked graves of hundreds of indigenous children on the properties of former residential schools. The PPC, by contrast, went in the opposite direction and instead looked to repeal the Multiculturalism Act of 1988, which aims to not only preserve but enhance multiculturalism in Canada.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

This, in addition to the PPC’s call to reduce the number of immigrants, contradicts a widely-held that “nativism has become impossible, even unthinkable, for a competitive political party in Canada today.” It is for this that “Bernier’s embrace of radical right-wing populism has heightened concerns about the importation of Trumpism and other far right ideologies into mainstream Canadian politics.”

The emergence of the PPC has pointed a light at a potentially darker underbelly within Canadian politics, one that may demonstrate violent sentiments. The of gravel at Trudeau during the 2021 election campaign by the former PPC president of the London Riding Association is a case in point. 

The potential political impact of the PPC is undeniable. At a theoretical level, it points to a need to consider the importance of fringe parties in discussions of Canadian politics in general. The PPC also stands as a bellwether, representing a potential future trend. Furthermore, the party is significant as it has had a detrimental impact on the electoral success of the Conservative Party and possibly its future direction of travel.

Most concerning, however, is its ideological impact. As David Moscrop in Global News, “T��� People’s Party of Canada has become a rallying point for extremists who existed before it did, but who now have an organisational anchor and home.”&�Բ�����;

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Radical Impact of Canada’s Fringe Parties appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There is a multitude of factors that contributed to the increase in alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, anxiety and depression rose dramatically among the general population, and alcohol consumption often increases for those who use it as a way to cope. “Stress and boredom likely were main drivers for a substantial increase in alcohol intake,” explains Dr. Jagpreet Chhatwal, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

Amid the Pandemic, Eating Disorders Are on the Rise

READ MORE

Measures that were designed to help businesses stay afloat during the pandemic may have also affected drinking habits. According to Chhatwal, “cocktails-to-go laws that allowed customers to pick up mixed cocktails at local bars and direct-to-consumer laws that allowed liquor stores to deliver alcohol directly to homes” point to a potential link between access and consumption. 

Regardless of the reason, these numbers are going to translate to significant morbidity and mortality rates for Americans in the future. According to new a by researchers at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital published in Hepatology, due to the pandemic uptick in alcohol use, there will be close to 20,000 cases of liver failure, 1,000 cases of liver cancer and 8,000 deaths over the next two decades. 

Addressing this pressing issue will be complicated in a country that has long glamorized the use of alcohol among its population. From Super Bowl advertisements to film and music references, alcohol has long been associated with celebration, letting loose and having a good time. Consuming alcohol, even excessively, is normalized to the point that it is integrated into daily life on a regular basis: after-work happy hours, relaxing at home, birthdays, weddings, sporting events, etc. Alcohol has become so fused into the fabric of American society that in 2019, the industry was already over $250 billion.

Putting a positive spin on alcohol is dangerous because it creates the mirage that there are no negative consequences on a person’s physical or mental health, which is both untrue and potentially harmful. “Not everyone is aware of the safe drinking limits or realizes when to stop,” says Chhatwal. Excessive drinking can cause a myriad of health problems including high blood pressure, heart attacks, stroke, increase the risk for cancer, liver and GI problems, a weakened immune system, depression and anxiety as well as socialization issues and job loss.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

In a country where more than 14 million American adults 18 years and older had a , according to statistics from National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the challenge will be raising awareness, confronting a booming business model and reevaluating new laws that made alcohol more accessible during the pandemic.

In Chhatwal’s opinion, “One of the foremost steps is to create awareness about the risk of an increase in alcohol consumption, especially high-risk drinking among women and minority populations who are more vulnerable.” He also stressed the importance of enlisting primary care providers to do more extensive screening for alcohol consumption patterns. There is also an obligation to take a hard look at new laws: “We need to evaluate the effect of cocktail-to-go and direct-to-consumer laws — if such laws contribute to increased drinking then there is a need to make policy-level changes.”

*[The Wider Lens provides commentary on trending stories in the world of health, covering a wide variety of topics in medicine and health care.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Since the Start of the Pandemic, Americans Are Drinking Too Much appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There are two solutions: attract more immigrants and institutionalize flexible work arrangements, especially for older Americans who aren’t ready or able to leave their jobs.

Amid the Pandemic, Eating Disorders Are on the Rise

READ MORE

Unfortunately, politicians and employers have shown reluctance to embrace these common-sense solutions. Despite promises to make sweeping to US immigration policy, President Joe Biden has been unwilling or unable to roll back most of the extreme policies of the Trump administration. To be fair, in the cases where Biden and his team have to make some changes, they have been by Republican-appointed judges to reimpose these policies, as in the case of the “” policy.  

In the workplace, some employers have refused to institute flexible work policies, leading to employee on calls to return to the office. Additionally, last summer, in 26 — all but Louisiana led by — ended extra unemployment benefits from the American Rescue Plan two to three months earlier than federally required, with some explicitly stating that the unemployed are “lazy” and wanting to collect government benefits. Governor Mike Parson of Missouri in May 2021 that continuing these unemployment programs “only worsens the workforce issues we’re currently facing. It’s time that we end these programs that have incentivized people to stay out of the workforce.” 

However, with the US averaging around confirmed cases of COVID-19 each day over the last week, the pandemic is far from over. American families are at their breaking point. Rather than relying on outdated racist and classist ideas about immigration and government support for families, politicians and employers wanting to stimulate the economy should focus on creative solutions to what is clearly an unprecedented crisis.  ]

Immigrant Workers

One solution is to build on the existing labor force by welcoming more immigrant workers and providing better benefits for their labor. While immigrants continue to be employed at a than those who are US-born, they make up just over one-sixth of the total US labor force. Immigrants have been on the of the COVID-19 pandemic working as essential workers at all levels. But at the same time, many immigrants, particularly Asian, faced increased during the early days of the pandemic. 

Politicians and the American public alike often invoke the idea that we are a “.” While some might argue that we never have , immigrants are an important part of American society and deserve better opportunities and benefits available to them.

Many immigrants in the US are not eligible for benefits, which makes them more vulnerable. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that at least 6 million work in industries hardest hit during the pandemic. Additionally, immigrant families have a of being food insecure. Thus, while immigrants take care of us, we do not return the favor.  

Flexible Working

The early retirements of older workers are more likely tied to concerns about health and safety around COVID-19 and an increasing desire for remote , yet many are not prepared financially for retirement. It would not be surprising if many returned to the workforce, at least part-time, at some point in the coming years. 

Industries, corporations, foundations and employers would be wise to recruit retirees, even for part-time positions. The older population has a wealth of experience, knowledge and the aptitude to mentor younger workers and immigrants. For example, in one of retired surgeons, more than half of participants were interested in serving as mentors to new surgeons and most were willing to do so even without compensation. Similarly, for , mentoring is a valuable experience for both retirees and new teachers.  

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

To be sure, attracting immigrant workers by offering competitive salaries and benefits, and meeting workers’ need for flexible work arrangements might require employers to temporarily cut back on profits. However, making these investments in workers would show that employers are forward-thinking and respect their contributions.

With US population growth, employers will have a smaller pool of potential employees and will therefore need to offer better working conditions to attract workers. Additionally, 2021 saw American workers striking and unionizing with rates not seen in , with attributing this, in part, to pandemic working conditions. In short, employers can create better working conditions by choice or by force.

Politicians could ease the burden on companies by incentivizing flexible working policies and making it easier for Americans to combine work and family. But — even better — they could ease the burden on workers by providing direct support through paid leave, housing support, universal health care and other programs that would allow for a better quality of life for Americans. These supports would also make part-time work a more realistic option and empower families to make their own decisions about how best to combine work and family at any age.  

Reimagine Society

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed us as individuals and as a society. We cannot simply “get back to normal” despite calls from and to do so. After all, the US alone will likely reach 1 million COVID-19 deaths in the months to come. 

If politicians and employers want to stay operational, we must take this chance to reimagine our society. This means putting people over profits and creating workplaces that are responsive to the needs of people and their whole selves. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Creating Better Working Conditions in America appeared first on 51�Թ�.

First, the COVID-19 pandemic is obviously far from over. While global vaccine distribution continues to be spotty and a matter of economic and political privilege rather than equality and fairness, new variants of the virus such as Omicron continue to emerge and suggest that the largest global health crisis in at least a century is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

It is tragic that the shortsighted, irresponsible attitude to just and equitable global vaccine distribution has now become the root cause for a seemingly infinite loop of viral mutations and spread. Indeed, the policies that are adopted by some countries allow new variants to incubate where vaccines are scarce, only to soon boomerang back to nations that are hoarding doses and patents alike.

Water World: Is Climate Change Driving Our Future Out to Sea?  

READ MORE

Second, the rapidly deteriorating situation, the stunning collapse of the status quo and public order, and the ongoing humanitarian and human rights crisis in Afghanistan remind us of the inherent vulnerability and fragility of the international order and its institutions. Afghanistan is but one example of a fundamental shift in global and regional geopolitics and balance of power that is now ubiquitous. The consequence is that human security and justice seem to become even more disposable than before.

Third, the 6^th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) affirmed that the global climate crisis is not only real and impactful but certain to increase, perhaps exponentially, and become even much more destructive, disruptive and deadly than previously projected.

Keeping the Goal Alive

At the same time, the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow reinforced the widespread fear that it is increasingly unlikely that the 1.5˚C goal sealed in the Paris Agreement — perhaps even the 2˚C fallback position — can still be reached, meaning that unimaginable threats like mega heatwaves, floods, droughts, hurricanes and blizzards, food crises and famines, mass migration and violent conflicts are to be expected to rise throughout this century.

COP26, unfortunately, was more of the same: cynical delegations of certain industrialized countries, as well as ruthless fossil fuel lobbyists, coerced poor countries already hit hard by climate change into a defensive mode and dictated a watered-down compromise that is far from adequate. Despite some mitigation pundits — typically white, male and Western — praising COP26 for “keeping the 1.5-degree goal alive,” the point is not about what’s hypothetically feasible but is very much about what has been done and continues to be done to this world’s poor, marginalized, underdeveloped, disenfranchised and remote people?

Much of the Conference of Parties process carries the handwriting of neoliberalism and neocolonial rule. If those people in the South Pacific, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere count, then why has the 2009 promise of COP15 in Copenhagen to make $100 billion in support of adaptation needs available still not been met, even to 50%?

Why do the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters still refuse to pay a single penny for the loss and damage to developing nations that they are responsible for? How dare wealthy carbon-emitting countries refuse to commit to immediate and drastic emission reductions knowing that their selfishness will kill millions of people, wipe out entire species and make much of this planet uninhabitable?

See a pattern? What COVID-19, Afghanistan and climate policy as a global phenomenon have in common is the toxic mix of short-sightedness, selfishness and ruthlessness with which international solidarity, collective action and the noble cause of pursuing equality, dignity and justice in international relations are being sacrificed for short-term gain, dominance and privilege.

Forty years of largely unregulated capitalism, economic globalization and neoliberal rule have not furthered the spirit and goals of the UN Charter. They have ruined our planet, its ecosystems and habitats, and left humanity in a state of shock, turmoil and disintegration — closer to what Hobbes’ “Leviathan” described as the state of nature.

International Threat

By the way, climate change adds to other global risks and threats: It is intersectional, cross-cutting and compounding. , and therefore epidemics and pandemics, are on the rise also because of changing climates, temperatures, precipitation, humidity, biomes and expanding human habitats. Wars such as those in Sudan, Yemen and Syria have been precipitated by climate change, desertification, water shortage, crop failure and hunger — as is forced migration as a mass phenomenon. The list goes on.

We simply can no longer afford a business-as-usual approach or even a moderately progressive approach, let alone a backward approach. This century of complex crises requires a whole new type of global action and response unlike anything before it because peace, security, prosperity and statehood are at risk globally. New, innovative and disruptive legal, economic and political tools are needed, paired with technological advances, ethical and sustainable investments, social movements and large-scale behavioral change.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Ultimately, the climate agenda — and with it, many other issues of global concern — is a matter of global justice and survival. Measures and instruments must be atoned to yield the safety and well-being of the poor, the marginalized, the disenfranchised and the underserved. The resilience of the weak will determine the fate of the whole. If that is the case, humanity — and alongside it, other species, ecosystems and the planet — will benefit as a whole. If it isn’t, today’s hubris, ignorance and selfishness will come back as a mighty boomerang, much like Omicron, to haunt many wealthy nations.

*[This article is submitted on behalf of the author by the HBKU Communications Directorate. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the University’s official stance.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Global Climate Crisis Is the New Frontier of Justice appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Despite the disruption to education as we know it, there is something positive to have emerged from the chaos: the cancelation of exams, sending a wave of relief to children and their parents. The only disappointed ones are some parents who feel robbed of the glory their kids bring by acing exams.

It’s Time to Make India’s Education Good Enough for All

READ MORE

It may have been inconceivable in pre-coronavirus times to think of an exam-free education system, but we are now faced with the possibility of exploring it. Just imagine how much unnecessary stress it would save children, parents and teachers. It would also free up time for students to pursue personal interests and hobbies and expand their knowledge beyond the classroom.

The Issue With Exams

The focus on time in the classroom to prepare for exams has led to a crisis in education. There are four key problems to address.

First, it is high time that examinations are recognized as the biggest scam in education. This is not in reference to mass or buying of certificates in countries like India. We should be questioning the very raison-d’être of testing in the current education system. Why do we need exams? A teacher should be the best judge of a student’s level of understanding. An evaluation, if at all, should be built on assignments and participation instead of one based on written or oral tests.

Once upon a time, a man called Albert Einstein on how a student‘s overall performance is a far better indicator of their achievements. “T��� teachers’ impression of a student derived during the school years, together with the usual numerous papers from assignments — which every student has to complete — are a succinctly complete and better basis on which to judge the student than any carefully executed examination,” he said.

Second, if we are truly interested in children succeeding in school, then education must be rich in content and relevance and accomplished through quality instructional time. Unfortunately, as the use of testing has become the norm to evaluate students, classroom time is dedicated to helping kids prepare for exams. This can often result in the narrowing of the curriculum as teachers are focused on topics that are part of the test. As a result, children are not taught other valuable information to broaden their knowledge.

Third, the current testing regime does nothing to address social and economic inequality; it only reinforces it. Children from low-income backgrounds who require further support are less likely to have access to additional resources at home. This includes a lack of support from parents who may be working more than one job, limited access to the internet or the financial inability to hire a private tutor. Exam pressure only exacerbates inequality and sets deprived children up to fail.

Fourth, exams represent a cruel process of elimination. Why should any child be eliminated from their right of getting an education just because they don’t achieve the highest grades? If the purpose of education is learning, then the task of a teacher is to ensure that all students learn, irrespective of the time and effort it might require. The fact is that exams lead to competition, which kills the spirit of learning. This system prioritizes individual achievement over collaborative learning, thus defeating the very premise of education with its focus on cooperation over competition.

The Examination Factory

Establishing an environment where each person is simultaneously a teacher and a student presents an opportunity to continually learn, not only from each other, but also from every situation. This would mean that interaction with everyone you meet, such as a shopkeeper, gardener, farmer or musician, can transform into a mutually enriching learning experience to develop skills that go beyond the classroom

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

The damage being done by a culture of education built around examinations can be seen on both the surface and subliminal levels. On the surface, it divides children into achievers and underachievers from a young age. At the subliminal level, its effects can be traumatizing for children, resulting in a complete erosion of self-confidence for some and brutalization of personality for others. 

Since the model of modern education finds its roots in the Industrial Revolution, it tends to treat individuals as products and educational institutions as brands — and together they dictate the existing job market. It is hardly unusual that education itself has become a market for the affluent. Institutions, especially coaching centers that at times don on the dual responsibility of coaching as well as “educating,” have become mechanical factories that are expected to produce a definite quality of product — in this case, a student with high exam scores so that schools can reach their targets. Commercialization has led to mechanization, which has a harmful effect on human intellect and emotions. 

The pandemic has forced us to pause and rethink the way we have shaped our concept of education. Can we really educate children in overpopulated classes? With an inadvertent byproduct of COVID-19 being social distancing, it has paved the way for fewer students per classroom. This should, hopefully, result in a more empowering teacher-student relationship and put the brakes on the mechanized version of teaching we see today.

This model would be in sync with the one pioneered by ancient , a “residential school where pupils live near their guru or teacher.” Such a system would need more qualified and dedicated teachers. But if this model will save us from the COVID crisis, then perhaps it can also tackle the crisis in modern-day education.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COVID Has Forced Us to Rethink Education and Exams appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A new published by JAMA Network reveals that the number of hospitalizations for eating disorders including anorexia, bulimia and binge-eating disorders, among others, increased dramatically during the pandemic. According to Dr. Kelly Allison, one of the researchers on the study and the director of the Center for Weight and Eating Disorders at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, the results “suggest that disordered eating became more severe in disorders of extreme restriction, as well as in those with loss of control eating.” What’s even more troubling is that the average age of the patients has decreased over time. 

Looking for a Safe Place in Facebook’s Digital Universe

READ MORE

Eating disorders are mental health conditions typified by significant and persistent disturbances in eating behaviors, accompanied by distressing emotions. People who suffer from eating disorders often display a preoccupation with body weight and food intake. These disorders can affect people of all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds as well as genders, although they are more common in girls and women. People are particularly vulnerable during the adolescence and teen years and are most often diagnosed between the ages of 12 and 35.  

There are many reasons why the COVID-19 pandemic created a breeding ground for eating disorders. For many people, eating habits changed significantly. Shopping at a grocery store was already incredibly stressful for the general population; for people with disordered eating behavioral patterns, it was most likely worse.

Those who restrict food intake may have limited their shopping excursions or curtailed their purchases; for those who binged, they may have the added temptation of bulk purchases of processed foods. “T���y were then in close proximity to that food all day while working or schooling from home, so the temptation to eat those foods was likely increased during this time,” says Allison.

Obesity is often cited as a for severe COVID disease and poor outcomes even in younger people. This news may have triggered disordered eating patterns in vulnerable people. Excess weight is often a modifiable risk factor and could have been the impetus for extreme dieting. “I have been overweight for a long time, hearing that extra pounds could land me on a ventilator in the hospital was enough for me to diet,” says Shaunda F., a 27-year-old mom from New York state. “I lost more than 12 pounds in two months at the beginning of the pandemic fearing for my life. I basically starved myself.”

There are other considerations with regard to an increase in the diagnosis of eating disorders and subsequent hospitalizations. Family members were able to pick up on pathological behaviors because they were together more frequently than normal. According to Allison, “Middle school, high school and college-aged individuals were home all day, and their eating behaviors and weight changes were more evident.” Under normal circumstances, these behaviors may have gone unnoticed but were more difficult to hide during the pandemic.  

Access to care was likely another factor responsible for the uptick in hospitalizations for eating disorders. “In the beginning of the pandemic, access was limited as providers were transitioning to virtual outpatient care,” says Allison. “This could have led to a time delay that progressed the severity of symptoms to a state where hospitalization was needed.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

It is imperative that parents and loved ones have this issue on their radar screen, as treating disordered eating patterns often requires clinical intervention. Keeping an eye out for warning signs can be life-saving. “If someone you care about starts avoiding eating with family and friends, along with noticing changes in weight (sudden increases or decreases), these should be considered concerning,” Allison points out. Using a bathroom directly after a meal could be a red flag for vomiting or laxative use. Other include hoarding food, a preoccupation with body weight, food or calories, wearing baggy clothes to hide weight loss, frequent checking in the mirror, skipping meals, etc.

Regardless of the reason, the pandemic has driven a rise in eating disorders and, like with COVID-19, a lot depends on everyone doing their bit to make sure those at risk are protected.

*[The Wider Lens provides commentary on trending stories in the world of health, covering a wide variety of topics in medicine and health care.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Amid the Pandemic, Eating Disorders Are on the Rise appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Not everyone is convinced. After all, why believe a bunch of scientists when the eminent universal genius of our time, Donald Trump, has vouched for the safety of the drug, normally used to treat parasites in animals, and its effectiveness against COVID-19. Effective it might be, safe less so.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

Over the past year, dozens of American ivermectin enthusiasts have paid for their trust in The Donald with their health and even their . Yet relatives of seriously ill COVID-19 patients have continued to demand that hospitals administer ivermectin to their loved ones, in some cases going so far as to involve the courts. The courts have invariably to force the medical staff to administer the drug, much to the doctors’ relief.

The Ivermectin Crowd

The Ivermectin crowd, on the other hand, has been irate, claiming that politics, not medical reasons, is behind the drug’s bad press. Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky who is “undecided” on the drug (“I don’t know if it works, but I keep an open mind”), earlier this year blamed the bad press on an : “The hatred for Trump,” Rand claimed, “deranged [medical researchers] so much, that they’re unwilling to objectively study it.” The same was true, he continued, for hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug the former president had promoted as a treatment for COVID. This is the very same senator who on YouTube that masks were not effective against the virus.

Ironically enough, this is exactly what Merck, the pharma giant that manufactures ivermectin, has said with regard to the drug. Earlier this year, the company that “there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies.” Again, why believe what scientists say when the ultimate authority on everything assures us of the drug’s enormous benefits.

Europeans have a tendency to sneer at Americans and their naiveté, gullibility and simplemindedness. After all, quite a few Americans are convinced that , even more that the Earth was some 10,000 years ago, and even more still (at least among Republicans) that Donald Trump was a great president who was of a second mandate. The rapid diffusion of even the most absurd conspiracy theories has done nothing to correct these impressions. On the contrary, it seems no idea is silly or outright stupid enough that there won’t be people eagerly gobbling it up.

My personal favorite is the notion that dinosaurs alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There they all — including the T-Rex — fed on leaves and vegetables. Only Adam’s fall from God’s grace turned them into carnivores. The silliness goes on and on. Those interested might want to explore the Creationist Museum in Rand Paul’s Kentucky. It is a true revelation.

Sadly enough, Americans don’t have a monopoly on credulity and viridity. The past year and a half have clearly shown that Europeans are hardly immune to the siren songs of conspiracy hucksters and “lateral thinkers” who claim for themselves that they think outside the box. In Germany, the lateral thinker movement has been behind a number of mass demonstrations against the government’s pandemic measures. In late August, lateral thinkers, together with various right-wing extremist groups, instigated the failed attempt to , the seat of the German parliament in Berlin.

Miracle Drug

Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that ivermectin has gained growing popularity among Europe’s “corona skeptics” and anti-vax circles. In a number of countries, prominent personalities have established themselves as advocates and promoters of the drug. More often than not, the result has been suboptimal, to put it mildly. A case in point is Herbert Kickl, the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), one of Western Europe’s most prominent radical right-wing populist parties.

Like some of its counterparts in other West European countries, the FPÖ has made great strides in establishing a reputation as a resolute, uncompromising opponent of the government’s anti-COVID-19 policies and as a defender of freedom and liberty of individual choice. A few weeks ago, in a major speech, Kickl that the Austrian government — a coalition between the center-right People’s Party and the Greens — had subjected its citizens to an “inhuman and contemptuous propaganda.” The time had come to liberate ���ܲ��ٰ�����’s citizens from this “system of oppression and coercion” and to stand up for the “protection of basic liberal values.”

Vaccination was unnecessary, he agreed. There were enough ways to treat the infection, such as vitamins and zinc, aspirin and ibuprofen. And, of course, there was ivermectin, the miracle drug, which, as a recent scientific study had shown, was highly effective against the virus. Or so Kickl claimed.

Unfortunately, it soon turned out that the “study” was a fraud. This was too bad. Ivermectin might have protected Kickl from catching the virus a few days after his endorsement of the drug. Otherwise, however, Kickl’s promotion of proved to be a great success, at least for Merck and those peddling ivermectin without scruples.

Inspired by their leader, FPÖ supporters started to hoard the drug, much to the detriment of ���ܲ��ٰ�����’s cows and horses suffering from pesky parasites. In parts of Austria, pharmacies temporarily of ivermectin. In many of these cases, customers managed to get a hold on larger amounts with prescriptions that had been . In the meantime, hospitals had to admit patients suffering from major drug and vitamin-related . As it turned out, warnings that taking high doses of ivermectin could have severe, even fatal consequences were anything but fake.

Yet the populist right continues to promote ivermectin, and for good reasons. The drug is as though tailor made for populist mobilization. For one, initial studies did in fact show that it was effective against the virus, but under : in a lab (in vitro), at very high dosages, way above the tolerance level for humans. At a human-appropriate level, or so a recent of the findings of several international studies suggests, ivermectin failed to improve a patient’s condition or reduce the number of COVID-related deaths.

As a result, the authors that, given current available evidence, “the use of Ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19 is not warranted.” This was also the reached by the European Medicines Agency in early 2021. As a result, it issued a warning against the use of ivermectin “for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials.”

Some American physicians disagree. Among them is the , which has called ivermectin a “miracle drug” and “the penicillin of COVID.” The alliance consists of a group of physicians and scientists “who champion ivermectin, along with other drugs and vitamins with dubious efficacy against COVID.” Promoting themselves as heterodox challengers of orthodoxy and the medical establishment, their informationals have swept across the vaccine skeptic community with apparent success.

According to a from late August, 45% of those who considered ivermectin to be very effective against the virus said they would never get vaccinated; 35% who believed in the drug’s effectiveness said they never wear a mask outside the home.

Toward Serfdom

In today’s world, refusing to get vaccinated or wear a mask counts as an act of resistance against authority, standing up for freedom and warding off tyranny. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Switzerland, where any attempt of the federal government to contain the pandemic is seen as a potential step toward serfdom. This comes from none other than , the influential former leader of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the country’s largest and a for Switzerland’s COVID skeptics and anti-vaxxers.  

Blocher expressed a sentiment shared by many opponents of the federal government’s pandemic measures. In the run-up to the recently held referendum on the Swiss COVID-19 certificate — a green pass for the vaccinated — these sentiments infused the of the “no” campaign. The opponents claimed that the certificate represented a fundamental encroachment on the freedom of the individual, a first step on the road to authoritarianism and worse.

With the certificate, the federal government put pressure on all those who did not want to or could not get vaccinated. This was nothing but the beginning of mandatory vaccination, similar to what the Austrian government had ordered. Despite all the hyperbole and hysteria generated by the “no” side, a large majority of the Swiss electorate came out in favor of the certificate, a painful defeat for the skeptics and their parliamentary arm, the SVP.

Like in Austria, those opposed to the federal government’s policies have put their hope on Ivermectin. At the same time, they that the federal government refused to approve the drug as a treatment for the virus in order not to jeopardize the vaccination campaign. Among the most prominent promoters of this theory — and of ivermectin — is a retired professor from the University of Zurich, Martin Janssen, who himself as a “liberal dissident.” A member of one of the committees that organized and financed the “no” campaign, he accused the government of doing everything to prevent those infected with the virus “to get well at home.”

This is why the rejection of the certificate by the Swiss electorate was of such great importance. Otherwise, would become a state like all the others, where “citizens were no longer in a position to defend themselves against their politicians.” As a result, like in , Swiss customs authorities a growing number of seizures of illegally imported medicine, among them, as the officials put it, drugs “against worms and other parasites that contain Ivermectin.”

In the meantime, even before the outcome of the referendum was known, the it would continue to fight against the COVID-19 measures, especially the so-called 2G rule (the Gs stand for the German words geimpft and genesen — vaccinated and recovered) that would limit the validity of the certificate to people in these two categories. In the eyes of the SVP, this amounted to nothing less than a disguised obligation to get vaccinated.

Unfortunately for a party that claims to listen to the concerns of ordinary people, a published in Blick am Sonntag, a popular tabloid, found a substantial majority of more than 60% of respondents favoring the 2G rule. More than 50% came out in favor of mandatory vaccination for all, and a bit less than half were in favor of a lockdown for the unvaccinated.

All of this suggests that things are going to heat up in the weeks and months to come and, with it, the question of ivermectin and other “alternatives” to the vaccine.

Russian Roulette

The case of ivermectin tells us a lot about the appeal of right-wing populism, its nature and the reasons why a substantial number of citizens have been drawn into its orbit. Why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to a drug that has not only proven to be ineffective against the virus, but even harmful, if not worse? It boggles the mind that the very same people who are worried about the potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have absolutely no qualms playing Russian roulette with their health when it comes to ivermectin and other household remedies and cures.

A profound distrust of the “establishment” in all of its forms suspected of collusion against the interests of ordinary people is part of the explanation. In a universe populated by self-proclaimed mavericks, dissidents and lateral thinkers, anyone with an official degree is suspect. It is hardly a coincidence that a retired professor from the University of Zurich held a position in finance and banking. This makes him ideally positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs — at least among the COVID skeptics crowd.

He is part the parallel universe of outsiders and what in German is known as Quereinsteiger — lateral career movers — who command trust for the simple reason that they don’t belong to the establishment. That’s their seal of approval. This allows them to peddle even the most bizarre ideas and narratives — and find eager takers. This is what got Trump elected in 2016 and what has propelled the likes of Eric Zemmour into the political limelight. Unfortunately, unlike drugs, they don’t come with a warning label. But then, today’s COVID-19 skeptics and anti-vaxxers would in all probability not read them anyway.

The reality is, COVID-19 denial in all its different forms is like a cult. Cults don’t tolerate dissenting opinions. This is the ultimate irony. Those who insist on liberty and freedom for themselves don’t accord them to those who disagree or deviate from the pure doctrine. When it became known that Christoph Blocher got vaccinated and publicly advised that everybody should do so, he received implying that he was a “murderer” and even . Although he denied it, it was more than likely that the authors were disappointed SVP supporters.

Scientists have had similar experiences. David Hill, a pharmacologist from the University of Liverpool, in the pages of The Guardian how he received death threats after he and his team published a meta analysis that found “several examples of medical fraud in the clinical trials of ivermectin.” Their study concluded that after filtering out “all the poor-quality trials, there was no longer any clinical benefit for ivermectin.”

A few weeks ago, Nature published the results of a based on a sample of scientists who in the past had commented on the pandemic. More often than not, their opinion provoked harassment and abuse, in some cases death threats. Apparently, ivermectin is not only harmful to those who use it to treat COVID-19 infections, but it is also dangerous to those who study its usefulness as a treatment against the virus.

One last thought. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that ivermectin is the wonder drug the cult pretends it is. Also, let’s assume Merck is fully aware of the fact. It stands to reason — I hesitate to say, in this context — that Merck has all the interest in the world to promote ivermectin as an effective and safe alternative to vaccines. After all, it would make a fortune, its stock would rise high, Wall Street would be happy, and Merck would gain the reputation of having saved the world.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

There is only one reason why Merck would withhold the information. It is in on “the plot,” whatever it is. Like other Big Pharma, it supports injecting everybody with microscopic chips that make us into submissive, remote-controlled automatons at the beck and call of a shadowy world government, pawns in a sinister ploy hatched out by the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, the Queen of England and god knows who else. It knows that these injection contain agents that turn enough of us infertile to solve the problem of climate change. The permutations are endless for ingenious minds.

There is, of course, an alternative scenario. Let’s assume Merck knows that ivermectin is totally ineffective against the virus and that, on top of it, it is harmful if taken in high doses. Now let’s assume Merck could care less about the drug’s potential harm to human health and life. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t it make sense for Merck to hire agents well versed in the art of marketing and persuasion to get as many people as possible to buy the drug? It is rather amazing that those who believe in whatever conspiracy theory comes their way have not wised up to this possibility. Let’s hope they will soon.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Playing Russian Roulette With COVID-19 “Cures” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Do Americans Still Trust Their Public Health Agencies? 

READ MORE

That’s why when reading Sebastian Schäffer’s response to my earlier article on 51�Թ�, I welcomed his perspective on the matter. However, I couldn’t help but notice certain misassumptions he has made regarding my stance on the pandemic and the dilemma Austria currently finds itself in. Furthermore, I would have hoped that some of the studies I previously included, pertaining to rising infection rates among those vaccinated and the efficacy of vaccines in combating new strains, would have been addressed in his piece. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of his comments and focus on the crux of the issue: the efficacy and ethical component of vaccine mandates. 

Divisional Sentiments

This ongoing pandemic has caused people from all over the world to experience a host of emotions, including apprehension, doubt and anger. Schäffer is not alone in feeling frustrated that things have “gone this far” regarding the status quo in Austria. Those who have read my article know that frustration is a key sentiment felt not only by myself, but by countless people around the globe. We need only to look at riots in the or the to confirm this.

I believe Schäffer is mistaken in assuming that mandatory vaccinations would “help to alleviate” the division in Austrian society. But don’t take my word for it. Thomas Czypionka, head of health economics and policy at the Vienna-based Institute for Advanced Studies, that a vaccine mandate “deepens the chasm in our society” and “may well serve as a strong push to more radicalization — especially with our history.”

Similar sentiments are echoed by Eva Maria Adamer-Konig, head of public health at FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences in Graz, who is of the conviction that most unvaccinated people “will probably even go into more resistance.” In an interview with Time magazine, she a pertinent study by the European Journal of Public Health in 2016 that found mandates for selected vaccinations can make people more likely to refuse other vaccinations they had previously been comfortable with. I would invite our esteemed readers to have look at the study and assess its implications for today.

Nonetheless, the question remains: How can those who have fundamentally opposing views still remain inclusive, fair and non-partisan when attempting to dissect the hard facts and plethora of information available on this subject?

Shunning Those You Politically Oppose

A recurrent theme not only in Schäffer’s response, but from many media outlets covering the recent demonstrations in Vienna was the presence of right-wing and extremist sympathizers. Schäffer affirms that hidden “reasons” were behind the massive protests in the Austrian capital on November 20 and that one should remain cautious over those who “organize and attend such protests.” To my dismay, not a single source or reference was included to provide further insight into these hidden “reasons.”&�Բ�����;It is true that among the protesters in Vienna were those from the far right. Yet, as already confirmed, the protest was not merely limited to individuals with such political leanings.

Let it be known that the ideology and policies embraced by the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) could not be more antithetical to my own political beliefs. Also, those demonstrators who wore yellow Stars of David with “unvaccinated” during the protests are not only tone-deaf, but their actions were abhorrently reprehensible. (I myself did not see any badges at the protest, but I acknowledge a few people were reported to have worn them.) But does this give us the right to shun and disenfranchise the concerns of the protesters as a collective based on the actions of certain individuals? That would be akin to trivializing and marginalizing the Black Lives Matter movement based on the violent actions of a few rioters. That sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? 

Yet even if someone is politically opposed to those who have a different view on COVID-19, does their voice bear less significance as a result, and should they be treated disparagingly? As Voltaire reportedly once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Citizens of a democratic nation have an equal say in matters pertaining to their country. That means I can protest against a common issue even with my most staunch political adversary. For one to claim that “opposition to COVID measures plays into the hands of populists … for their own agenda” is, again, an assumption without any factual clarification.

Furthermore, even if criticizing the state broadcaster ORF has been a tactic employed by the FPO, if I criticize them as well, does that automatically nullify my critique from being valid? I could not wrap my head around this faulty reductionist logic. Citing an article from The Atlantic pertaining to anti-vaxxers in Germany in which Austria is not even mentioned and correlating this by vaguely implying these two countries are similar (perhaps based on a shared history) is frankly confusing and misleading to the reader. Germany and Austria are two separate nations, with different cabinets and policies regarding COVID-19. 

Being Receptive to Data Contrary to Your Beliefs

When mentioning the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin in my earlier article, I was simply raising awareness of the manner in which certain news outlets such as CNN spun a story to serve a specific agenda. Yet since this topic has been raised in Schäffer’s response, I feel compelled to expand on this subject.

To tie FPO leader Herbert Kickl’s stance on the drug with its efficacy to treat COVID-19 is an attempt to politicize the narrative around ivermectin. For if I oppose Kickl, and if Kickl supports using the drug as a plan B, does this automatically mean I oppose ivermectin?

What is conveniently disregarded by Schäffer is a lengthy case in Uttar Pradesh, the most populated state in India. The state, which is home to around 241 million people, has fewer than 20 infections and zero deaths a day in recent months, ranking it last in cases per capita amongst India’s 28 states and eight union territories. Ivermectin has been widely distributed across the population for use during early infection with COVID-19. Further studies from in 2020, based on data pulled from a pool of 1,200 hospitals, showed that patients who received ivermectin had a “65% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and an 83% reduction in overall death rate.” These studies probably bear greater weight in shedding light on the efficacy of the drug than a lone hospitalization case in Austria. That, in my opinion, is false balancing.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

This leads to my next question: Why are certain studies promoted and others banished from seeing the light of day? Could the fact that ivermectin, a generic drug that holds no patents, be a threat to the pharmaceutical establishment that is producing COVID-19 vaccines en masse? Also, what leverage do these pharmaceutical companies exert on political parties via lobbying and on global media through donations? 

I find these to be suitable questions, with significant relevance to the discourse and in need of further exploration. Let us not forget that the majority of people vaccinated are from the Western world, with many developing countries unable to get their hands on jabs. If that isn’t indicative of a greater two-tier system or “medical apartheid,” then I don’t know what is.

Other Metrics to Measure the Toll COVID-19 Has Taken on Us

The over-burdening of our health-care system is often mentioned and many believe a heightened vaccination rate would alleviate some of that pressure. I would be doing the readers of 51�Թ� and myself a disservice if I chose not to address this point. Indeed, vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalization rates and the severity of infection from COVID-19. It is also true that many of our health-care professionals are being pushed to their limits.

Schäffer ends his article by saying that the well-being of society is more important than one’s personal health. I would therefore like to discuss other metrics in assessing COVID-19‘s toll on society, irrespective of fatalities and hospitalizations. We are witnessing a staggering number of , drug , cases of , and alarming accounts of as a result of the pandemic and the ongoing lockdowns. In Austria, this year has been a for the number of husbands murdering their wives. I ask our readers to assess this phenomenon and question whether this too is deserving of our attention and alarm.

With the emergence of the new highly contagious Omicron strain, which is purported to have 30 mutations in the virus’ spike protein, will current vaccines be effective in quelling this variant? As mentioned in my previous article, COVID-19 vaccines have shown significantly less efficacy with the Delta variant — a far less contagious strain than Omicron — than natural immunity from infection, as per a in Israel.

Regarding the history of mandatory vaccinations of smallpox that many pro-vaxxers are referencing today, this comparison lacks credibility. Smallpox vaccines are effective in preventing infection, whereas those vaccinated with COVID-19 jab are just as likely to the virus as those without, as stated in my previous article. Additionally, the smallpox vaccine was first in 1796, and its implementation in England and Wales was between 1840 and 1890, which allowed over half a century to elapse for sufficient data to be gathered before the vaccine was mandatorily inoculated.

COVID-19 vaccines are barely a year old, with insufficient data regarding their long-term side effects. They are also being deployed through emergency use, which means neither governments nor pharmaceutical companies bear in their adverse effects. So, what justification will a person have when someone who is opposed to getting vaccinated is coerced by legal means to get the jab and then develops life-altering conditions such as , which has led some countries to the use of mRNA vaccines in teenagers? What other side-effects could potentially arise if vaccinating our children also becomes subsequently mandatory? Considering the data on vaccines and their efficacy has changed considerably this past year, would it not be safe to assume that it will continue to change? These are some of the material questions many people are seeking answers to.

To ensure this is not a back-and-forth exchange, this will be my final statement. I urge all of us to remove the political prism through which we view this topic. We should be receptive and fair to studies that may go against our convictions and remain inclusive in appreciating concerns from those with whom we may not agree. Only then will we be better off as individuals and society as a whole. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Debate Over COVID-19 Is Exactly What Austria Needs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

Yet, unlike the author’s view, I was frustrated that it has gone this far and that we now need to use tough measures — which include mandatory vaccinations by February 2022 — to avoid a collapse of the health care system. The more I thought about the points raised in the article, the more I felt the urge to respond. I appreciate the policy of 51�Թ� to publish those with differing opinions and I want to contribute to the discussion.

Poor Communication

First, you can and should criticize the Austrian government for how it has handled the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, its communication was flawed by prematurely lifting COVID-19 restrictions in July and there would be a “return to normal” by the summer. Criticism of the government is clearly allowed in Austria, otherwise protests against lockdowns and vaccines wouldn’t be taking place.

Yet what baffles me is that for some, there seems to be a complete ignorance over the reasons that many people participate in such demonstrations. This becomes dangerous if one is oblivious to messages used by populist and far-right groups — many of which organize and attend such protests — without questioning them.

For instance, the chant “Wir sind das Volk” (We are the people) can often be heard during protests today against lockdowns and vaccines. It was also used during demonstrations that led to German reunification in 1990 and was directed at the authoritarian German Democratic Republic (GDR), otherwise known as East Germany. The measures introduced to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are nowhere comparable to the GDR. But when populist politicians like the leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), Herbert Kickl, in press releases that from “today, Austria is a dictatorship,” it distracts people from the reasons for COVID restrictions and mocks victims of real dictatorships.

I am lucky to have never lived in an authoritarian state, but I do work with people who do and/or have. Therefore, I do not have apt words to respond to claims of “medical apartheid” to describe what is happening today with restrictions being dependent on one’s vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated people were first banned from visiting hospitality venues, hairdressers and cinemas, followed by a that was specifically for those who had not received a vaccine. It is also true that students and lecturers in Austria must be fully vaccinated in order to attend lectures, but this mainly applies to medical universities where first semesters involve working in ; other universities were permitted to set their own rules. Requiring a negative PCR test would probably work best to help curb the spread of COVID-19 as breakthrough infections can occur among those vaccinated.

Here, the official communication should have been better. The mistake by the government was that being fully vaccinated implied that wearing a face covering and being regularly tested were no longer necessary. Scientific findings during a pandemic are fluid and new research might make adapting to the situation necessary. This should have been better relayed to the Austrian public not by researchers, but by politicians and journalists.

This situation contributed to the necessity of announcing another lockdown, which, in addition to vaccine mandates, led to the demonstrations in Austria last weekend. As is always the case, estimates vary to a great extent between official figures from the police (40,000 protesters in the capital Vienna) and the organizers (one of them being the far-right FPO, which said 100,000 attended).

Regardless of which source is more credible, let’s put this into perspective. On the same day, more than people were vaccinated in Austria with either their first, second or third doses. In Vienna alone, over received a jab, which was the third consecutive day with the highest number of vaccinations in the capital. In other words, nearly the same amount of people who showed their discontent with the vaccination mandate and lockdown actually received their jab. And the overwhelming majority clearly believe in the efficacy of the vaccines — more than two-thirds of Austrians are fully vaccinated.

The Far Right

Second, it is necessary to have a closer look at who has been organizing these protests, which have occurred throughout the year. (German-speaking readers can watch documentary.) The Atlantic this up in an article on protests in Germany, which has similarities to Austria. In both countries, participants have included conspiracy theorists and members of both the far left and far right. For the record, not everyone who has attended such demonstrations falls into one of these categories. Khalifa points this out by saying he saw “people from all walks of life” at the protest in Vienna on November 20. However, one should be aware with whom they are assembling and the messaging of the main organizers.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

At protests in Germany and in , an underlying issue is anti-Semitism. The crude comparison with the Holocaust by some protesters wearing a yellow Star of David with “” written instead of “Jew” leaves me again at a loss for words. There is a certain irony when people are protesting with signs that read “My Body, My Choice” next to groups that would deny a person this choice when it comes to abortion.

Shifts in the discourse and cries about a so-called dictatorship desensitize others when it comes to actual alarming developments. The aim is to create a sense of duty to participate in order to prevent greater harm. But why then has it been framed as “patriotic,” as Khalifa puts it, instead of a civic duty to act?

Ultimately, opposition to COVID measures plays into the hands of populists, who benefit and are driving this forward for their own political agenda. Criticizing the national public service broadcaster, ORF, is another one of these methods and has been used by the FPO for a long time.

Kickl has also praised the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, amongst others, as a “” for the pandemic. One of his fellow party members even waved a of the drug in parliament. While there seems to be an indication for possibly using the drug to treat some cases of COVID-19, the European Medicines Agency has warned that the dosage to be effective is . Supplies of ivermectin are now low due to high demand in Austria, directly impacting the treatment of conditions the drug is traditionally used for. It has also led to at least one person ending up in the .

Vaccine Mandate

Third, mandatory vaccinations would actually help to alleviate the situation in Austria, not only with the pandemic, but also with regard to divisions in society. If everybody is vaccinated, everybody has the same rights and obligations. In an with the BBC, Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg focused on the latter, stating that you “don’t only have rights, you have obligations.”

It would also help to get out of the loop of lockdowns, which are extremely expensive for any economy. Estimates for the latest lockdown are as high as ($4.48 billion). This will ultimately lead to tax hikes in the next national budget and have an impact on future investments. Less pressure on hospitals would also lead to fewer burned-out staff members, who are quitting in desperation. But the most important point: Fewer people will die or suffer from long-term implications, which, due to the relatively short experience we have with COVID-19, still might be unknown.  

It is worth pointing out that vaccines were in post-war Austria and elsewhere, namely in order to eradicate smallpox. But it remains to be seen how the legal basis for this will look like today with legal challenges likely to take place. That is the beauty of living in a democratic country based on the rule of law.

In a democracy, that also includes the right to protest. But one should be cautious with whom they are protesting and find more suitable ways of voicing different opinions instead of assembling with a large group of people during a pandemic. Protesters are figuratively spitting into the face of health care professionals, something that has literally been done by some participants at in Austria. Virtual town hall debates, signing petitions or engaging with your political representatives would be alternative possibilities.

What should be more sacred than personal health is the well-being of society. History is the progress of the consciousness of freedom, and individual freedom ends when it endangers the freedom of others.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Debate Over COVID-19 Continues in Austria appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

As a result, Joshua Kimmich has become one of Germany’s most admired football players — quite a feat, given that he plays for one of Germany’s most disliked clubs — a model and icon for many youngsters. Yet these days, his image has become somewhat tarnished. The reason: A few weeks ago, it was made public that Kimmich refused to get vaccinated. Put on the spot, he explained that he wanted to wait for the results of “long-term studies.” Long-term studies, by definition, take a long time. In other words, it’s going to take a while for Kimmich to get the jabs.

We Are What We Are

Two weeks ago, the German national team played the last two World Cup qualifiers, the first against Liechtenstein, the second against Armenia. Germany won both, without Kimmich — not because he didn’t want to play or because the coach had decided that the two matches were unimportant enough to allow Kimmich to take a well-deserved time out. The reason was much simpler: A defender from Bayern Munich had tested positive for COVID-19 and had to go into quarantine, as did his contacts, among them Kimmich.

Last Friday, the German Bundesliga resumed play, with Bayern confronting Augsburg, again without Kimmich. His quarantine had ended, but in the days before the match, another Bayern player had tested positive and, once again, Kimmich was sent into quarantine. Bayern lost the match.

Needless to say, Bayern’s management is not amused. But until now, the club has maintained that it was up to its players to get vaccinated — or not. This is likely to change. Patience is running out, and not only in Germany. Bayern Munich is Bavaria’s source of pride, the poster child of regional identity and lifestyle, reflected in the club’s unofficial slogan, “Mia san mia” — “We Are What We Are.”

Its connotation is that we won’t allow others to tell us what we should do, that we are our own masters. This has a long tradition in Bavaria. Bavaria’s official name is Freistaat Bayern — the Free State of Bavaria, whose people have always valued their freedom, particularly against Prussia and Berlin.

Then the fourth wave of infections hit the Freistaat. Bavarians love their freedom, including the freedom to refuse to get vaccinated. As a result, vaccination rates here are significantly below the average for the former Federal Republic. They are even lower in the eastern part of the country, where the radical right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been particularly successful in mobilizing the population against anti-COVID-19 measures. A recent has shown that infection rates are particularly high in areas where the AfD has done well in recent elections, and this not only in the east but also in the western part of the country.

Nowhere, however, is the situation as critical as in Bavaria. Over the past several weeks, infection rates in the region have exploded. I was born in Mühldorf, a small town between Munich and Salzburg, in Austria. A few weeks ago, Mühldorf boasted a sad record of having second-most new infections in Germany. At the time, the rate of new per 100,000 habitants stood at more than 600 per week. As of November 22, it stood at more than 1,130 — and rising.

Zero Tolerance

In the face of these rates, which threaten to overwhelm the German health care system, patience is running out. A recent in Der Spiegel, Germany’s premier news magazine, sets the tone: “Zero tolerance for the unvaccinated.” Enough is enough, the author maintains. Germany has been far too indulgent with those who refuse to get vaccinated and, in the process, not only “play the lottery with their own health” but “endanger everybody else.” It cannot be that a minority “dictates” to the rest of society how to live.

An in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a major left-of-center daily paper from Munich, takes the same line. Dismissing the charge that forcing the unvaccinated to take the shot would lead to societal polarization, the author declares that “the unreasonable rob the reasonable of their freedom — and the governments have let themselves be intimidated by them.”

Such commentary reflects a dramatic change of mood in German society. It finds its confirmation in a recent commissioned by Germany’s major commercial TV station, RTL, that found a two-thirds majority of respondents coming out in support of general mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. Commenting on the results, the deputy head of the station’s politics department that this would mean a restriction of basic rights. At the same time, it would avert further harm to society and the state. That’s what ultimately counts more.

Until recently, in the context of COVID-19, freedom was to a large extent defined as the liberty to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. Any attempt on the part of the government to introduce restrictive measures was seen as an assault on fundamental rights and freedoms. In Switzerland, for instance, like Bavaria a bastion of freedom, those opposed to the country’s COVID-19 certificate have equated restrictive measures as the beginning of the road to authoritarianism à la China, if not outright tyranny.

Good Advice

It appears that this pandemic poses a fundamental challenge to our notion of freedom, which is now being pushed to its limits. One’s freedom stops there, Immanuel Kant has said, where the freedom of the other begins. This sounds perfectly reasonable, as does the notion, advanced by Matthias Claudius, an 18th-century journalist and poet, that freedom consists in being allowed to do whatever does not harm others. The fact is that today, the vast majority of those who end up in intensive care units have not been vaccinated. When ICUs fill up to capacity with COVID-19 patients, the beds are no longer available for emergency cases.

to the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the likelihood “that a fully vaccinated person will end up in ICU due to COVID-19 is 33 times lower than for a non-vaccinated person.” With the dramatic upsurge in infections, the number of patients ending up in hospital is bound to increase significantly, with serious consequences for personnel and care facilities. Already in late August, in Switzerland, COVID-19 patients for around 30% of those in intensive care. As a result, some hospitals began to delay non-urgent operations. 

The same was true for other countries. In the UK, late last year, cancer patients had scheduled operations postponed or even because of the upsurge of patients needing intensive care during the second wave of the pandemic. It stands to reason that this is going to happen once again with the most recent fourth wave. In countries like Austria and Germany, the situation is already critical, as Bavaria’s health minister a few days ago: “T��� numbers are rising drastically. The intensive care units are filling up. Our health system is about to collapse.”

Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt that those who insist on their freedom not to get vaccinated put those who don’t get the medical attention they would otherwise receive unnecessarily in harm’s way.

In the meantime, Bayern Munich’s management talked to Kimmich and his four unvaccinated teammates — without success. In response, the club it would stop paying players who refuse to get vaccinated, including Kimmich, while they are in quarantine. 

For many of Kimmich’s critics this does not go far enough. They have that unvaccinated players should be excluded from practice and matches altogether, if only to send out a strong signal at a time when Germany is heading into a health crisis. The situation is serious, in some regions dramatic — with dramatic consequences: RB Leipzig will have to play its next home matches in front of an , a result of Saxony’s low vaccination and high infection rates.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Under the circumstances, it might be time to rethink what we mean by freedom. One point of departure might be a point made by in 1947 during a prayer in the US Senate. Freedom, he said, is “not the right to do as we please, but the opportunity … to do what is right.” This jibes with a quote from the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, later adopted by Friedrich Engels and still later by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in his famous essay on the “,” which states that freedom “is the recognition of necessity.”

In an age characterized by hyper-individualism, where, as Margaret Thatcher famously quipped, society does not exist, these quotes might sound hollow. Given the urgency of the current situation, and not as populist sirens would like us to believe, they might be the best advice we can give ourselves in order to find the way out of this crisis.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Meaning of Freedom in the Times of COVID-19 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We arrived at Rathausplatz just after noon on Saturday and were surprised to see a sizable turnout was already present. In particular, it was interesting to see people from all walks of life come together to voice their discontent with what many believe to be an authoritarian decision by our government.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions have caused heated debate in Austria and around the world. It has led to rifts within households, arguments amongst friends and clashes between political opponents. Nearly two years since the outbreak of the virus, many of us are left with questions unanswered over our inalienable rights, our livelihoods and the state of our future. What is more startling is how the narrative surrounding the coronavirus and its transmission has changed, leaving many skeptics wondering whether the Austrian government has our best interests at heart.

Whilst walking around before the march commenced, I noticed many women holding signs stating, “My Body, My Choice.” Before Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg’s press conference announcing the new restrictions and vaccine mandate, it seemed unfathomable that a democratic country like Austria could force individuals to either get vaccinated or suffer the consequences. Starting November 15, those unvaccinated were ordered to stay at home or incur a hefty fine. This was a lockdown specifically for people who chose not to receive a jab.

Despite Austria being a relatively small country, news of a national lockdown and vaccine mandate sent shivers throughout the globe. Stock markets around the world did not take the news lightly, with most tumbling considerably. My sister was surprised to hear this. “How can the policies of one small nation have such an impact on the international market?” she asked. I replied saying that many were that Germany and other countries in Europe would follow suit and that this would create a ripple effect. 

Vaccines

When the rollout of vaccines began at the beginning of 2021, many were optimistic that it was the beginning of the end for restrictions placed on our lives and that some degree of normalcy could return. Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna touted their two-dose vaccines to be over 90% effective in preventing the transmissibility of the virus, and governments were quick to encourage people to get their first jab immediately.

However, as the coronavirus inevitably mutated into thousands of strains, as all viruses do, this efficacy rate was now in question. US President Joe Biden’s former senior adviser for COVID response, Andy Slavitt, in July that the dominant Delta variant is far more contagious than previous strains and will inevitably get it. Despite this, many governments around the world argued that a vaccine was paramount in slowing down the spread of the virus and that this was the soundest policy to embrace.

Yet data collected by seems to indicate otherwise. South Korea, which has vaccinated 80% of its population, has seen a considerable in COVID-19 cases. The situation is similar in the United Kingdom and Israel, which have comparably high percentages of their population vaccinated. A year-long recently revealed that those vaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus as those who are unvaccinated.

This begs the question: Are vaccines the solution in controlling the spread of the coronavirus and stopping the global pandemic? Also, why are so many governments adamant and unrelenting in getting their populations vaccinated? 

Solidarity

As a large group of protesters could be heard coming our way on Vienna’s Ring Street, I could sense that the march was about to begin. Police were out in droves, with news outlets reporting that 1,300 officers were dispatched, many coming from rural parts of Austria. I saw a number of flags being waved, including Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, Polish and countless Austrian ones. A strong sense of solidarity was on display, and I couldn’t help but notice that many, regardless of their nationality, felt that this was their patriotic duty to turn up and speak out against what they felt was an infringement on their basic rights.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The atmosphere was positively charged. Despite the big crowds, people were cordial in making way for others, and some would strike up friendly conversations with one another. The man who was tasked with giving a speech about why we were protesting started speaking about a two-tier system that the government had created and the division it has sown between people. Demonstrators were clapping and cheering in agreement, and I found myself nodding along to the point he had raised.

I recall hearing the term “medical apartheid” a few months ago, which I found apt in describing the current status quo. It is undeniable that those who have chosen not to get vaccinated have endured social consequences in various forms. Previously, in order to visit a restaurant, museum or club in Austria, one had to provide proof of vaccination, a recent recovery from COVID-19 or a negative PCR/antigen test. The latter has since become inadmissible. Institutions such as universities do not accept proof of recovery from the virus either, known as the “1G” rule, for lectures. This applies to both students and staff.

These measures are interesting considering that researchers in Israel that antibodies resulting from infection last longer against the Delta variant than those produced by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. So, the question is what will be the next step taken by our government? Will booster shots become mandatory at some point?

Media Reporting

As my sister and I looked back at the crowds, we saw a sea of people. We couldn’t tell where it started and where it ended. I asked, “How many people do you think turned out today?” She replied, “Around 8,000 to 10,000?” That seemed to be far fewer than what I thought — more like 25,000. After a few hours and worn-out soles, we decided to go home and make use of what was left of the weekend before the lockdown begins. I arrived at my apartment and noticed my sister had sent me a message. It was an article by that said over 40,000 people attended the demonstrations in the capital.

To my dismay, the state broadcaster , along with many national and news outlets, downplayed and dismissed this protest as one organized and “led by right-wing extremists and hooligans,” which was simply inaccurate and truly unfortunate to read. This raises questions as to what motives or agendas these media organizations have and the negative consequences of their reporting on people’s trust in the veracity of their content.

I couldn’t help but think about the Joe Rogan debacle over the anti-parasitic drug and how news broadcasters such as CNN deliberately twisted information. Rogan, a well-known podcaster who chose not to get vaccinated, contracted COVID-19 a few months ago and recovered. He took ivermectin, a drug prescribed by his doctor to treat early symptoms of COVID-19. Upon taking the drug, CNN and other outlets spun the story and said he took a “,” conveniently ignoring that have provided sufficient evidence into the effectiveness of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

For the record, I am not against anyone getting the jab; I got vaccinated this summer to avoid restrictions on my movement and activities. Yet, just as it is a person’s right to get vaccinated, if someone opts not to do so, that is their choice. If we allow the Austrian government to unequivocally determine what is best for us when the evidence is changing constantly, then I fear this will give the government a carte blanche to meddle in our private affairs without reservation. And we will have given them the mandate to do so.

That is a terrifying prospect and must be avoided at all costs. For what is more sacred and personal than our own rights, health and well-being?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post ���ܲ��ٰ�����’s COVID-19 Measures Have Gone Too Far appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Most Americans have gotten vaccinated because they simply want protection from COVID-19. A small number of citizens have gotten jabbed in order to go to restaurants, attend sporting events or qualify for lottery prizes.

When It Comes to Climate Change, Promises Matter

READ MORE

You’d think that would be enough. An effective vaccine against a life-threatening disease, an opportunity to regain some semblance of normalcy, a coupon for 10% off your next purchase at the store where you got your shot: truly a no-brainer. And yet, there has been resistance.

COVID-19 Vaccines

Imagine an alternative ending to the film “I Am Legend” in which the two immune humans transport the anti-zombie vaccine to a compound of survivors only to be met with questions like, “How long did it take to develop this vaccine? Does it contain a microchip? Are you a shill for Big Pharma?” This is the same vaccine that Will Smith blew himself up to safeguard? For some people, every gift horse is a Trojan horse.

It would be one thing if the anti-vaxxers were a tiny minority living like hermits in the wilderness. Alas, they are very much among us, offering up their bodies on a daily basis to keep COVID-19 alive and circulating. Who’d have expected that a deadly virus would acquire such a rabid fan base?

Since carrots have gone only so far in breaking down the resistance of the hesitant, governments are now deploying sticks. In one country after another, the state is using various forms of economic coercion to break down resistance. These “mandates” require workers by sector, or in some cases all sectors, to comply or risk losing their jobs. As a result, all that anti-lockdown and anti-masking fervor is now getting funneled into opposing these government efforts to boost vaccination rates and prevent the next wave of infection from overwhelming hospitals and funeral homes.

Several hundred protesters with like “Mandate equals Communism” recently massed on the Golden Gate Bridge to protest the California measures. In Melbourne, anti-mandate protesters are comparing the Australian government to the Nazis. In Italy, the far-right Forza Nuova was  a violent street demonstration against the government’s vaccine mandate. Scattered  accompanied ���ܲ��ٰ�����’s recently imposed lockdown on the unvaccinated as COVID cases hit a daily  in that country.

This is all very troubling. What used to be common sense — let’s eradicate polio, let’s stamp out smallpox — has become a debatable proposition. Perhaps this is no surprise given the revival of flat-Earth .

But the really scary part is what comes next. ��’m not talking about the upcoming upsilon (or whatever) wave of COVID-19, which is enough to give anyone pause. ��’m worried about how the world will react to the inevitable green mandates that governments will impose in the near future. After all, voluntary commitments to cut carbon emissions are just not doing the trick. The recent climate confab in Glasgow may well prove to be the high-water mark in this doomed laissez-faire approach.

At some point, governments will start using more sticks than carrots to break our deadly dependence on fossil fuels. Call me a pessimist, but ��’m not expecting a warm and fuzzy embrace of future climate mandates. At question here is not just the dubious state of humanity’s collective intelligence. It’s how we conceive of community, government, and our mutual obligations.

Understanding Pushback

In Italy, the “green pass” was initially required only to eat at restaurants, go to museums, and work out in gyms. Then you had to show proof of vaccination to travel by planes, trains, and ferries.

Last month, the government required all public and private workers to show their green passes to go to work. And that’s when the protests really got heated. Dockworkers went on  in Genoa and Trieste. A rally of 10,000 in Rome on the eve of the new regulation going into effect turned violent. In Udine, a city of about 100,000 people, more than 1,500  up with signs like, “Vaccinated and unvaccinated together for freedom.”

It’s not as if Italy is a vaccine-resistant country. Around  out of four Italians have been fully vaccinated. That’s not as good as Portugal (86% fully vaccinated), but it’s way better than the United States (which remains below 60%).

However, really noisy people can capture headlines regardless of how representative they might be. Consider the United States where protesters have argued that mandates for hospital workers, police and airline personnel will lead to mass resignations. As social psychologist Adam Galinsky points , New York’s largest police union “fought such mandates in court and argued that the police department would lose thousands of officers. In the end, out of a force of about 35,000 officers, fewer than three dozen refused the vaccine. Similarly, of the 67,000 employees at United Airlines facing a mandate, only 320 refused to get vaccinated.”

The numbers elsewhere have been equally low. In France, which experienced spirited anti-mandate protests, only 3,000 health workers were suspended because of their refusal to get vaccinated, which was but  of the total sector. The same percentage of health workers in New South Wales in Australia resigned in protest. For comparison’s sake, the turnover in the health sector in New South Wales was more than 9% in 2019.

These mandates, by the way, can be remarkably effective. In San Francisco, for instance, the vaccination rate among city workers  from 55% in June to a post-mandate 94% in October.

The success of mandates and the relative impotence of the protests notwithstanding, it would be a mistake to dismiss anti-vaccine sentiment. First of all, the stubbornly unvaccinated will continue to determine the future course of the pandemic. Second, the reluctantly vaccinated will still cling to their views, which will inevitably be expressed at later occasions.

And what are those views? Let’s not get distracted by the bizarre and the simply misinformed. What lies beneath is a basic mistrust of authorities, whether scientific, political or broadly civic. The predominant sentiment among anti-vaxxers is that these authorities shouldn’t be allowed to tell them what to do with their own bodies. “My body, my choice,”  the sign of a protesting nurse in Paris.

In some ways, the rhetoric is reminiscent of the mantra of the pro-choice movement: “keep your laws off my body.” But it’s a misleading resemblance. Anti-vaxxers do have a choice and it’s not comparable to a back-alley abortion. They can quit their jobs. In some cases, as in Italy, they can even keep their jobs if they submit to regular testing. And such testing has the added benefit of enabling the country to better track any potential outbreaks.

And let’s remember: abortion is not communicable. Mandates are necessary to safeguard public health. The same applies to vaccines for children in public school. In New York, health care workers  get vaccinated against measles and rubella while child-care workers in Rhode Island are required to get an annual flu shot.

Sure, I have a healthy skepticism of authority, but it doesn’t trump my commitment to the public good. To be blunt, anti-vaxxers just don’t care about the health of the community. That sentiment, which is also shared by plenty of people who get vaccinated for purely selfish reasons, does not bode well for efforts to address the climate crisis.

Future Green Mandates

The commitments that nations made in Paris five years ago to shrink their carbon footprints: voluntary. The promises made in Glasgow this month: voluntary. The choices that you will make this year about buying a car, heating your house, feeding your family: all voluntary.

In a perfect world, everyone cooperates voluntarily to preserve the planet. In reality, some people do so, others promise to do so and don’t, and the rest have all along been looking out for number one. This mix of responses to a public policy challenge falls into the category of a “collective action problem.”

Usually at some point in a collective action problem, some authority has to intervene to establish rules of the road to protect the common good. So far, the interventions to reduce carbon emissions have been largely non-coercive, except perhaps for workers in a handful of countries who have lost their jobs in fossil fuel industries. No one has been forced to go vegan, trade in their gas-guzzler for an electric car or take a solar-powered yacht across the Atlantic instead of flying out of Dulles.

Perhaps governments will continue to use markets to constrain individual choices. Everyone will have to buy electric cars because the old-fashioned combustion kind simply won’t be available. Air travel will become prohibitively expensive except for the elite. Locally grown tomatoes will crowd out ones shipped in from other parts of the world.

But “free” markets — and both corporate actors and individual consumers — are slow to respond to existential crises, are resistant to government interventions and prioritize prices above all else. Markets by themselves will not shift resources quickly enough from the still profitable but highly pollutant sectors to the less profitable except in the long term green sectors.

So, let’s imagine a future government mandate that all businesses with more than 100 employees have one year to become carbon-neutral. Or that all citizens are capped at a certain number of kilowatt hours per month in their household. Or everyone has a certain travel allowance measured in carbon emissions that covers their commute, their work trips and their vacations.

As with the vaccination mandate, the rationale will be that individuals have to change their behavior for the good of the whole. The green mandates will encounter similar resistance. Some people will continue to insist that climate change doesn’t exist, that the government is overreacting or overreaching, that liberty consists of the right to own an SUV and drive it anywhere one likes.

With climate change, however, the threats are not quite so immediate or palpable. People are dying from rising waters on the other side of the world. The casualties will mount up not next week but in 20 years. And what of the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a green transition in the Global South? It’s one thing to ask people to get vaccinated to save lives in their immediate community. Will people submit to mandates to save lives in the Maldives?

Much will depend on the level of trust citizens have in their governments. The skepticism that is concentrated among anti-vaxxers is, unfortunately, more widely shared. According to Pew, only  of Americans believe that government can be trusted to do what’s right (down from 77% in 1964). The average among all economically advanced countries is higher —  trust their national governments — but still not encouraging.

And that trust will also depend on the nature of the governments themselves. Where the far right is in charge, all bets are off. The same applies to the corrupt, the authoritarian and the simply incompetent.

All of which is to say: Governments have to prove that these vaccine mandates work in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. They have to ensure that these infrastructure and pandemic recovery funds make a concrete and sustainable difference in people’s lives. They have to demonstrate that government is committed to that old-fashioned principle of improving the public good.

If governments fail this test, here and now, then forget about meeting the challenge of climate change. Without effective government measures and sufficient public support for future green mandates, we might as well be living in houses of straw and sticks. We lazy little pigs will sing and dance and play with our electronic devices until the superstorms of tomorrow huff and puff and blow us all away.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Vaccine Pushback Is Bad, But Wait for the Climate One appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The next referendum will be held at the end of this month. The big issue: a modification of a federal law that informs the ordinances issued by the federal government to combat the pandemic. In concrete terms what the vote is all about is the COVID-19 certificate that was introduced in September. Like in many other countries, it is required if you want to eat at a restaurant, work out at a gym or go to a public library.

Beware! Populism Might be Bad for Your Health

READ MORE

For obvious reasons, those who for whatever reason refuse to get vaccinated have not been particularly happy about the new regulation. On November 28, Swiss voters will be given the opportunity to either come out in support of the existing law or reject it. In the latter case, it would expire early next year. Any new law regarding the pandemic would have to be renegotiated in the federal parliament.

Patience Running Out

In the meantime, the chasm between supporters and opponents has deepened amid an increasingly polarized political climate, the general mood becoming more and more irritable. This has much to do with the dramatic worsening of the pandemic situation in Austria and particularly Germany, where new infection rates have skyrocketed within a few weeks, reaching alarming dimensions. As a result, on November 15, Austria sent its nearly 2 million unvaccinated citizens into a strict . Chances are that what is happening in Germany is sooner or later going to happen in Switzerland.

In the face of these realities, patience appears to be running out in the country. A few days ago, Switzerland’s daily free newspaper 20 Minutes published the results of a it had commissioned. Respondents were asked their opinion on various anti-COVID-19 measures. More than half supported the notion that those who are not vaccinated should be sent into lockdown, but only if hospitals were to reach the limits of capacity once again. Given the situation in neighboring countries, this is hardly an unlikely scenario. More than 60% said that medical personnel should be obliged to get vaccinated.

Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the opposing camp has intensified its campaign against the law, and not only in terms of rhetoric. One of the main sponsors of the campaign, a committee named “Healthy and free,” has been prepared to spend more than 1 million francs in support of the “no” campaign.

A significant part of the money comes from a who has organized the committee, together with one of the daughters of Christoph Blocher, the eminence grise of the right-wing populist Swiss People’s Party (SVP), herself a billionaire, and other prominent personalities. The “yes” side, on the other hand, has not more than a tenth of the funds at its disposal.

Nomen est omen, as the saying goes. In this case, the name is the program — and wishful thinking. To be “healthy and free,” as the past year has shown, is like squaring a circle. The intensive care units in Switzerland, Germany, the United States and elsewhere are full of patients who have paid for their freedom with their lives. Clearly, Kris Kristofferson was wrong when he claimed that “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” — at least when it comes to deadly viruses.

According to most recent statistics, cantons with the have been recording the highest per-capita infection rates. These are relatively small cantons in German-speaking central Switzerland, the so-called Innerschweiz, such as Schwyz, Obwalden and Appenzell Innerrhoden. These cantons formed the historical core of the confederation and, as a result, liberty and independence are particularly valued here.

Vaccination Sets You Free

It is, therefore, hardly surprising that freedom is central to the opposition’s campaign. The other day, Swiss households received a flyer that charged that the government, politicians and the media were exerting “enormous pressure” on everyone who doesn’t want to or can’t get vaccinated, concluding that with the strengthening of the COVID-19 law “one legalizes the forced vaccination of all and everybody.” This, the opponents charge, not only leads to discrimination and a division of society but paves the way for the “total surveillance of the population.” The result: a slow erosion of liberties and democracy.

The other day, we spent an afternoon in a small town close to Lausanne along Lake Geneva. On the way, anti-COVID-19 activists had attached posters to lampposts that were a perfect expression of the hysteria and hyperbole that informs the “no” camp. On the top of the poster, a rendition of a part of the COVID-19 certificate; on the bottom, a Chinese flag. The inscription reads: “It starts like that, and it ends like this.” To add to the hyperbole, on the very bottom of the poster the exhortation says, “No to health apartheid.”

Under the circumstances, it is somewhat surprising that the “no” camp has not yet pulled out the ultimate symbolic club — Auschwitz. After all, in Italy, demonstrators protesting against the government’s pandemic measures saw no problem like concentration camp inmates.

Or they could take out a page from the anti-vax radical right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), which last year managed to gain attention by that showed parts of the entrance gate to the Dachau concentration camp. This was the part that holds the infamous and cynical slogan “Arbeit Macht Frei” — “Work Sets You Free” — only in somewhat modified fashion. Instead of “Arbeit Macht Frei” it read, “Impfung Macht Frei,” exchanging “work” for “vaccination.”  

The appropriation of highly emotionally charged terms and symbols such as apartheid and the Holocaust by anti-vaxxers is symptomatic of the extent to which political culture in Western liberal democracies has been degraded in recent years. At the same time, it is also symptomatic of the victimology culture that pervades Western societies these days. have shown that a significant number of those who refuse to get vaccinated do so because they blindly believe in the truthfulness of even the most absurd and abstruse conspiracy theories.

These are the useful idiots in the service of cynical political entrepreneurs who could care less about their freedom and liberty, political entrepreneurs who, in the wake of the pandemic, have seen their political fortunes diminish and support at the polls decline.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The AfD is a case in point, as is the SVP. The pandemic has given little occasion to Switzerland’s strongest party — which on top of it holds two ministerial portfolios in the country’s federal government — to mobilize the troops. Its core issues, such as immigration and the EU, are no longer salient, at least for the moment. In this situation, the polarization over the question of how to deal with the pandemic holds significant political promise.

It is hardly a coincidence that leading SVP members are instrumental in promoting the narrative against COVID-19 legislation, both to rally the troops and to regain lost ground in the political arena. According to the survey mentioned earlier, SPV supporters are particularly reluctant to get vaccinated. As a result, they are most likely to succumb to the latest variant wave.

At the moment it is anyone’s guess how the voters will decide at the end of the month. One thing is clear: The pandemic has opened up a deep rift in Swiss society. According to a , more than 75% of the population share this perception. To be sure, recent surveys also suggest that a majority of the electorate will vote in support of the law.

Yet past referenda have shown that surveys are not always reliable. Surprises are always possible, particularly in cases where the level of emotions is particularly high. Whatever the outcome, the “corona chasm” is likely to persist and, with it, acrimony and resentment that have started to pit Swiss against Swiss.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Politics Behind the Coronavirus in Brazil

READ MORE

The commission heard more than 100 witnesses during 66 sessions and examined some 20 million gigabytes of digital information to trace the causes and consequences of Bolsonaro’s decisions, such as his lax COVID-19 policies derived from the disastrous attempt to let the virus run its course in order to reach herd immunity. Last year, Bolsonaro downplayed the coronavirus as “,” promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and other unproven medications as a cure, opposed the use of masks and, most critically, failed to secure adequate stocks of the COVID-19 vaccine for the federal program.

COVID-19 Crimes                                        

The PCI was in April, a month after the pandemic at over 89,000 infections and almost 4,000 deaths a day. The commission’s final report is weighty, providing nearly 1,300 pages of robust evidence to indict Jair Bolsonaro on nine criminal charges, including crimes against public health and crimes against humanity. In addition to the president, , including three of his sons, two former and one current minister, as well as several close allies who are occupying key positions in public institutions, are on the indictment list.

The final report has been submitted to the general prosecutor’s office for further consideration. If Bolsonaro is formally charged, he might face between 21 and 79 years in prison.

The report will also be presented to the lower house of Brazil’s national congress. This could lead to an impeachment process for misconduct. Approval of the report by the lower house is unlikely, however, given it is controlled by Bolsonaro supporters. Formal would have to be issued by Brazil’s attorney general, Augusto Aras, who is the president’s political appointee. The senators who led the commission have of taking the case to the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the likely scenario that the Brazilian justice system fails to prosecute Bolsonaro.

The turning point of the investigation was the uncovering of a inside the Ministry of Health to spend $300 million on 20 million doses of overpriced COVID-19 vaccines produced by the Indian company Bharat Biotech. The investigation revealed that the Ministry of Health reserved approximately $45 million to buy Covaxin, which has not undergone proper clinical trials and hasn’t been approved by any of the world’s health regulatory agencies. 

The payment was to be deposited in an offshore account of an opaque Brazilian company, Precisa Medicamentos, which was brokering the deal and is facing several judicial probes into irregularities of public procurement contracts. A deputy in the lower house of congress and former minister of health who is a of Bolsonaro led the negotiations for the acquisition of the vaccine. Allegations from witness testimony indicate that the president was aware of the scheme. The attempt of the Bolsonaro administration to buy Covaxin is perplexing given that last year, it to buy the Pfizer vaccine even at a discounted rate.

Political and Social Consequences

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a lack of leadership across the country, turning a public health emergency into an economic and sociopolitical crisis. While there already were undisputed signs of a fast-approaching recession, with the rapid spread of the virus, the economic scenario deteriorated further. In 2020, Brazil’s economy was the second-most affected by the pandemic, after Spain. Last year, Brazil presented a negative GDP growth of .

Economic projections for 2021 suggest that the Brazilian economy will show only a modest expansion considering last year’s economic debacle, with estimated GDP growth of . This comes in a context of worsening macroeconomic indications such as increasing inflation rates, devaluation of the currency and rising interest rates.

The pandemic has also deepened political tensions in Brazil, with Bolsonaro more isolated than ever. The pandemic made crystal clear the president’s ineptitude to lead, coordinate and articulate meaningful solutions to the crisis. It brought to the fore Bolsonaro’s belligerent personality and put him at odds with close aides. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Brazil had rotated four ministers of health, two of whom have left the government due to with the administration’s policies.

Bolsonaro has also tried to shirk federal public health responsibilities to state and local authorities. This has the political conflict with state governors, which has greatly contributed to the disarticulation of coordinated pandemic response. Despite Bolsonaro’s obstructionist policies, state governments carried out their own vaccination programs. The state of São Paulo began a large-scale vaccination drive after an agreement was signed with the Chinese company Sinovac Biotech to locally produce the Coronavac vaccine. As of last week, the state had a of 87% for those over the age of 18, compared to 53% for the rest of the country.

Electoral Prospects

Initially, Bolsonaro interpreted the pandemic as an opportunity to advance his narrow political interests, such as his controversial agenda of easing arms control, relaxing implementation of environmental legislation and combating anti-corruption laws and actions. Furthermore, the president used the pandemic as an to distribute financial assistance to the poor, a move that allowed him to enjoy high popular approval ratings during several months of the pandemic, from February to October 2020.

The indictment will have far-reaching consequences for Bolsonaro’s ambitions in next year’s presidential election. Based on an opinion poll from October, if the election were held today, former President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva would win with in the second round.

Lula, who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bolsonaro, was on corruption charges, until the supreme court his conviction in April this year. Thus, despite current projections that give Lula a clear lead, Brazil’s 2022 presidential election will be a highly polarized affair with unpredictable results.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the launch of the senate inquiry, has dropped significantly. Between January and October this year, the number of those who describe Bolsonaro’s governance as “bad” increased from 40% to 53%, while “good” or “excellent” ratings have from 32% to just 22%, the lowest point since he took office in 2019. This is bad news for Bolsonaro, who will lose his presidential immunity from prosecution if he fails to win reelection.

In response, on October 20 — the same day the results of the investigation were first made public — the president announced that he would increase financial support to a major social assistance program, the “,” designed to alleviate poverty. This populist welfare policy, which was announced for the sole purpose of bolstering the president’s reelection prospects, had a negative effect on the Brazilian financial markets.

The government’s is creating a record deficit, with the International Monetary Fund projecting public debt to reach 96% of the country’s GDP. Under this fiscal deterioration, investors are concerned about Brazil’s capacity to further control its debt, leading to a sharp devaluation of the currency; since January 2020, the almost 40% of its value.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Jair Bolsonaro thought the COVID-19 pandemic would help disguise his incompetence. Instead, the crisis has shown how lack of leadership kills — at a shocking scale. The more than 607,000 Brazilian lives lost during the pandemic serve as a constant and grim reminder there is no place in Brazil for weak leadership.

While bringing those protected by immunity to justice will be an uphill struggle, the parliamentary inquiry has demonstrated that Brazil has strong democratic institutions that can not only effectively resist the by the executive but also hold the president accountable for fomenting what may be the in Brazil’s history.  

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Brazil See Justice for the Mismanagement of the COVID-19 Pandemic? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The West Struggles to Understand China’s Common Prosperity

READ MORE

As Merchant reports, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center has launched a media campaign “to inform business executives, academics and local and state government officials about the risks of accepting Chinese investment or expertise in key industries.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Chinese investment:

A source of capital that intelligence experts believe may even surpass the capacity of US investment to produce evil effects in the world

Contextual Note

Thanks to the testimony of before Congress, even previously unsuspecting senators now appear aware of the formidable capacity of US companies like Facebook to use the immense power of their monopolistic position and their manipulation of the data they collect to disrupt society, distort politics in a democracy and poison people’s lives. Members of Congress have vowed to discipline, if not dismantle, Facebook. Whether they ever consider that Facebook’s case may be evidence of a broader problem that may extend to the government itself remains to be seen, but it seems highly unlikely that they will make that effort.

The intelligence community and the AP now want us to understand that, where data is concerned, there is a far bigger problem: China. In the past, Americans welcomed Chinese investment in the US. It boosted the economy, created jobs and promoted innovation. All that has changed. They now understand that Chinese investors in the US and Chinese tech workers hired by US companies have only one thing in mind: stealing American intellectual property. 

Thanks in part to the Facebook scandal, many Americans for the first time seem dimly aware of the danger to their well-being posed by giant organizations that control data. These tech giants wield the power to imperil the stability of society as a whole and the individuals who compose it. But because Americans distrust governments more than corporate greed, they logically fear any government that does what Facebook is doing. At the same time, they naively assume that if Facebook and Google are doing it, their government is not doing exactly the same thing, often in collusion with the private firms. 

On the other hand, everyone knows that the Chinese government is doing it, albeit not to make a profit for shareholders but to respond to the needs of its population and consolidate its own power. For Americans, it is far more patriotic to allow private companies to manipulate markets, silently deploy invisible algorithms and deviously extract from an unwitting population the wealth that will enable one of today’s struggling tech billionaires to become a centibillionaire tomorrow. In fact, the US does both.  

Facebook, Google and Amazon clearly have become data-rich powerhouses because, unlike governments, they have never been distracted by the potential social benefit of their products. They focus on financial profit. They may seek to limit the amount of visible harm they do to protect their brand. But the certainty of profit always trumps an incalculable risk of harm. Google admitted this when it finally let go of its , “Don’t be evil.”

The focus on profit allowed these companies to become the uncontested leaders in the domain of data production, manipulation and control. Americans tend to see the fact of endowing private enterprises with a monopoly on harmful activity as the definition of freedom. The firms are free to make a profit, and the general population is free to access their software, apparently free of charge. The consumers pay by invisibly and, therefore, painlessly providing the data that turn them into virtual but voluntary slaves of the tech giants’ sophisticated commercial system. Could anyone imagine a more efficient system? Slaves who don’t find reason to complain work harder.

Compare that with the Chinese model. There are some real similarities between the two. Those who hold power in both cases see the system as an effective means of supervising vast populations and influencing behavior. But the Chinese government is less interested in provoking specific behaviors designed purely for profit. Consistent with Chinese culture, even while consolidating control, the government is guided by the ideal of harmony. It may be authoritarian, but Westerners are wrong to call such a system totalitarian. Just as Americans believe profit is the key to economic development, the Chinese rally around the idea that what is done in the name of harmony is good.

The real difference between the two models lies in the basic motivation. One seeks stability, even at the price of constraint. The other, in the name of freedom, seeks to provoke a form of instability that stimulates consumption and, ideally, addiction. One begins by considering the collective needs of an entire society. The other focuses on the needs of individuals who can afford the price.

Historical Note

The National Counterintelligence and Security Center appears to be preaching for the decoupling not just of the Chinese economy from the US, but of Chinese culture altogether. It nevertheless offers this half-hearted disclaimer: “While the center does not intend to tell officials to reject Chinese investment, it will encourage efforts to control intellectual property and implement security measures.” But the message is clear: Get them damn foreigners out of here. It targets not just investors, but also workers and students.

This complaint is not new. The idea Americans have of Chinese history is that after offering the world silk, gunpowder and tea, China has contributed nothing to the global economy and only seeks to profit from the dynamism of Western economies. China cynically waited for innovative entrepreneurs in the US to produce wonders and then devised a plan to imitate or simply steal those wonders.

The foundational belief held by most Americans turns around the belief that private property is sacred and applies even to language (copyright) and abstract ideas (intellectual property). This is something of a historical innovation, but it contains some serious flaws.

The most obvious flaw in the reasoning has appeared in the saga concerning COVID-19 vaccines. In 2020, Bill Gates led the successful campaign to give priority to protecting the intellectual property generously attributed to pharmaceutical companies over any project seeking to protect the global population. It followed the principle of serving those who can afford it and rewarding those who monopolize intellectual property rights. This policy has led to a prolonged succession of new waves of the pandemic due to predictable mutations.

The AP article mentions “indictments alleging theft of sensitive U.S. information on behalf of China, including vaccine research and autonomous vehicle technology” as examples of the Chinese threat. Some of the millions of people who have died of COVID-19 and many more whose lives or livelihoods have been upset by the pandemic might have deemed the supposed theft of vaccine research a virtuous act — and not only because it was public money that paid for vaccine development.

The other example cited, concerning autonomous electric vehicles, is also illustrative, since the rapid phasing out of cars running on fossil fuel could possibly serve to attenuate an ongoing climate disaster that threatens everyone.

According to the standards of Western law and culture, China is clearly guilty of theft on all counts. But Western media has some serious work to do if we are to avoid a new Cold War. The hope that China will evolve into a Western-style social democracy is as misplaced as it was in Iraq or Afghanistan. The BBC demonstrates a than AP when it helps its readers to understand that “China celebrates ‘harmony’ (hexie) as a ‘socialist value.’” This echoes the permanence of Confucian culture that BBC glosses over as an “ethical system that combined hierarchy, where people would know their place in society, with benevolence, the expectation that those in superior positions would look after their inferiors.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Europe experimented with the idea of benevolent dictatorship in the 18^th century and failed, before evolving toward social democracy, more than two centuries and two world wars later. China hasn’t failed yet. Given time, it might evolve to become a social democracy. So might the US.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China, the Bogeyman of the New Cold War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Religion has always played a role in low vaccination rates. A 2015 literature review on to measles vaccination that examined major religious groups around the world — Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islam — found that, although there are always social determinants that explain religious objections, there were also specific issues such as the possible use of aborted human fetus tissue in the making of the vaccine (Christian, Roman Catholic) or the use of animal-based gelatins (pork and cow for Islam, Judaism and Hinduism).

The Colorful World of Coronavirus Conspiracies

READ MORE

Another analysis of Europe’s identified five that are at a higher risk: Orthodox Protestant communities, anthroposophists (Steiner schools), Roma, Irish Travelers and Orthodox Jewish communities. In , before the pandemic, Muslim families had significantly lower vaccination outcomes compared to other religious groups.

The Alt-Medicine Crowd

The alternative medicine/wellness crowd became another predictor of low vaccination when Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet sparked an international wave of vaccine hesitancy at a time when vaccination drives had achieved the eradication of several deadly diseases around the world. Wakefield’s scientific deception is skillfully summarized in Brian Deer’s “,” where conflicts of interest (Wakefield had filed his own single measles vaccine patent before publishing this research) and reports of abuse (invasive and unnecessary tests on autistic and neurodivergent children) are documented.

Wakefield’s now-discredited publication, which connected the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine to gut inflammation and falsely correlated it with a diagnosis of autism, effectively launched the modern reincarnation of the anti-vaccination movement.

Contrary to the vaccine hesitancy among religious communities, alt-medicine groups have managed to monetize their opposition to vaccination. A report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) estimates that the anti-vax media complex is , with estimated annual profits at around $36 million, based on publicly available data.

Some of the leading figures in the business earn six-figure salaries (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earns $255,000 a year as the chairman of Children’s Health Defense). Anti-Vax groups also applied and received more than $1.5 million in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program in the US to help them to survive a pandemic they questioned.

More disturbingly, the CCDH report estimates that anti-vaccination-related traffic is extremely valuable for Big Tech, worth estimated at around $1.1 billion. An analysis of showed that the majority of anti-vax advertisement is funded by two campaigners, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Larry Cook.

Dabbing in Extremist Hatred

Before the pandemic, anti-vax groups were a public health concern in terms of various that became more frequent since the early 2000s. However, once the anti-mask protests of 2020 evolved into the anti-vaccination protests of 2021, the far right has managed to successfully traditional anti-vax communities, turning a public health concern into a political problem of .

This anti-vax, anti-government, far-right nationalist protest medley is evident anywhere from Canada to Australia, where COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests have turned to violence and conspiracy-driven . In France, the ubiquitous used by protesters to denote unvaccinated status became a stark reminder of how the pain of Holocaust survivors can be easily appropriated.

Similarly, the movement has used opposition to the relatively mild COVID-19 restrictions in the country as a vehicle for anti-Semitic and radical-right extremism. In both Greece and Cyprus, where a SafePass — proof of vaccination or a negative test — is required to enter any commercial or public space, large anti-vax protests turned violent, in the case of Cyprus attempting to a TV station.

Some evidence suggests behind these protests: a German group, the Free Citizens of Kassel, seems to be behind the “World Wide Rallies for Freedom” organized since March 2021 in all corners of the world, even in tiny countries such as Cyprus and Luxembourg, using the hashtag #WewillALLbethere.

Another German movement promoting anti-vax conspiracy theories is called Querdenken, which translates as “lateral thinking.” It is now by Facebook and it has been linked to the far-right Alternative for Germany party. According to some , Querdenken has managed to infiltrate teenagers’ social media channels and successfully spread COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Satanic Vials

Religious symbols at these anti-vax rallies, however, reveal that their message is not only about religion. Behind the bizarre circulation of the “” card is the fact that Christian symbolism is simply the metaphor, not the substance, in demonstrating against a “satanic” vaccine or an oppressive government that will lead to the “apocalypse.” The history of Christian thought and scientific consensus is much more than simple refusal. In fact, Christian religious leaders in the US have vaccinations despite debates on the use of fetal cells for research.

However, in the US, anti-vax protests are less about religious beliefs and more about the awakening of that is pro-Trump and QAnon-positive. The group has skillfully embraced Christian nationalism and engulfed religious beliefs in an ideological mix of anti-mask, anti-vax, MAGA white nationalism.

Among US Christian groups, represent the largest block in anti-vaccination ideology. Although they may use the Bible as a source of vaccine hesitancy, more often they resort to a rhetoric of condemnation toward the “” that resembles the anti-establishment language of right-wing extremism.

In Greece, countrywide anti-vaccination protesters brandished Greek flags, big Greek Orthodox crosses and chants of the national anthem and “Christ Has Risen.” At the same time, priests and monks marched alongside Golden Dawn followers who brought their neo-Nazi arguments to the anti-vax demonstration. During one of these protests, Elias Kassidiaris, a former Golden Dawn MP, joined the protesters from prison via phone. All of these phenomena beg the question of how much the seemingly religion-inspired anti-vax movement is another expression of Christianism.

Conspirituality and Vaccine Refusal

The term “” was coined in 2011 by Charlotte Ward and David Voas to signify a productive merging of the mostly male-dominated world of conspiracy theories with the feminine New Age spiritual wave. The term has since taken on and found a revived relevance during the current pandemic. The Conspirituality podcast, launched in May 2020, has been a brilliant weekly take on the “converging right-wing conspiracy theories and faux-progressive wellness utopianism.”

The phenomenon is directly relevant to the alt-medicine crowd that has always emphasized the idea of one’s sovereign, meditative body that exerts control over its immune system and is impervious to the replication of the virus.

The main message throughout the pandemic has been to question the scientific existence of COVID-19 — for example, Kelly Brogan’s Questioning Covid website — but also to interpret the pandemic through the concept of “the great reset,” which Brogan’s partner, Sayer Ji, explains as “Tyranny. Technocracy. Experimental Jabs.” It is a form of neoliberal spirituality that places emphasis on individual responsibility and deflects from the role of public health research.

But the synergies between those spreading “medical freedom” and the far-right crowds should not be underestimated. One of the leading entrepreneurs of the anti-vaccination movement, Del Bigtree, spoke at the January 6 “MAGA Freedom Rally D.C.” just a block from the US Capitol. The creator of the Facebook group “Stop Mandatory Vaccination” Larry Cook also launched the YouTube channel, “Medical Freedom Patriots,” describing it as pro-God, pro-Trump, anti-vaccine and QAnon-friendly.

The Bollingers, an anti-vax couple with a large social media following and even larger revenues, founded the United Medical Freedom Super PAC that campaigned against vaccination during the 2020 election. Sherri Tenpenny, a trained physician who advocates against vaccination, is an adviser to Mike Lindell and a promoter of the so-called “election fraud” debate in the US.

In many ways, COVID-19 has made possible a backslide from the alt-medicine to the alt-right: your yoga teacher, organic food guru and meditation partner who advised you on how to keep your immune system strong in order to avoid vaccines is now talking about the government’s plan to microchip you to facilitate the trafficking of young children.

In effect, the far right has the leftist side of the anti-vax movement through a shared anti-establishment stance. As Andreas Önnerfors has pointed out, these anti-vaccination protests represent a of the left (green/progressive/liberal) with the socially conservative right.

Vaccine Hesitancy vs. Anti-Vaccination

The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization defines as “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services.” It notes that it is a complex societal and cultural phenomenon related to three factors: complacency, convenience and confidence. This largely psychological approach, however, misses the political dimension of anti-vax ideology.

Currently, the challenge is to understand how reasonable fears and valid questions surrounding vaccination mutate into radical and extremist anti-democratic ideology. Part of the explanation is how narratives of have succeeded in appropriating anti-establishment sentiments. A recent study by analyzed narrative tropes and rhetorical strategies in anti-vax platforms and found that the narrative of “corrupt elites” and the strategy of appealing to the vulnerability of children were most frequently used.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

As Mark Davis argues, even before the current pandemic, anti-vaccination websites oppositional and antagonistic strategies to produce an anti-public discourse that mostly resembles white supremacist, alt-right and conspiracy forums.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that vaccine hesitancy is not just about the vaccine. It showcases the algorithmic traction of the antagonistic discourse on social media that shuts down arguments with a concern for the “ordinary” people or “defenseless” children. Ultimately, it is about mistrust of authority, the specter of corrupted elites and a misplaced desire for freedom and choice.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Alt-Medicine: How the Far Right Weaponizes Vaccine Hesitancy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Kyrsten Sinema’s True Motive Revealed

READ MORE

Since the bulk of humanity, including those already vaccinated, is still susceptible to being infected by SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — we should all rejoice, though not quite as gleefully as Merck, the pharmaceutical company that has produced the pill. “It makes sense,” MarketWatch explains, “that pharmaceutical companies are trying to figure out whether antivirals can reduce the risk of someone dying or ending up with organ damage and an expensive hospital stay.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Make sense:

Make dollars, when applied to the actions of any large pharmaceutical firm

Contextual Note

“Finally, we have another potential tool,”, declared the media’s omnipresent guru, Dr. Anthony Fauci. More significantly, Merck will have a windfall estimated at $7 billion from its sales of molnupiravir by the end of the year. The US government “has already placed an order for 1.7 million courses of treatment, at a cost of $700 per patient.” Newsweek it “one of the most lucrative drugs ever.”

As American media rejoices, British media seem somewhat more reserved. The Independent out that “an analysis of drug pricing by Harvard School of Public Health and King’s College Hospital in London found that it takes about $17.74 to produce a five-day course.” In its lengthy article that explores all the difficulties of deploying the drug across the globe, The New York Times never the gap between the cost of production and the price at which Merck is pitching the treatment. Instead, it endorses the reasoning cited by one expert who calls for “donors to step up with funds to make sure treatments reach everyone.” Bill Gates, the guarantor of global health, are you listening?

In contrast with The New York Times, The Independent notes a simple historical fact: “T��� pill, hailed as a breakthrough in the treatment of coronavirus, was originally developed to treat influenza using government funds.” In other words, it was the public and not Merck who paid for the product’s development. It’s a classic narrative of pharmaceutical opportunism. Emory University received $29 million in grants between 2013 to 2020 to develop the drug with no input from Merck or anyone else in the industry. In May 2020, in the midst of the pandemonium provoked by the pandemic, sensing that it might be a goldmine, Merck “bought the exclusive rights to sell and manufacture the drug worldwide.” This sums up the logic of today’s rentier capitalism.

Historical Note

One thing the saga of successive surges of COVID-19 should have taught humanity is that neither prevention (vaccination) nor treatment will be effective if the effort is not shared and coordinated globally. The history of COVID-19 offers an even more fundamental and imperative lesson. Health is the one feature of human life that should never be individualized and subjected to the logic of consumer culture.

Consumer culture assumes that individuals will make wise economic decisions to purchase what is best or most attractive to meet their personal needs. It also assumes that those who want something — whether it’s a shampoo, a kitchen robot, a surgical mask or a vaccination — will make the effort to afford the purchase. For most people, this means seeking employment. Finally, it assumes that those who accumulate excess means — the capitalists — will decide to use those means to produce goods or services, not with a view to meeting the needs of humanity or of society, but for the prospect of making sales pitched at those individuals who have the means to pay.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

If the tyranny of consumer logic wasn’t enough to complicate humanity’s response to COVID-19, the acceptance of the notion that nation-states are the only legitimate arbiters of global decisions constitutes another obstacle to problem-solving. The Times assesses the state of the marketplace for Merck’s magic pill and fatalistically concludes, “All this means that treatments could remain largely with nations able to pay for early access, as they have done with vaccines.” As usual, The Times tells us: Don’t argue with the logic of either capitalism or nationalism.

Newsweek’s account flirts with the comedy of misplaced optimism. It quotes Nicholas Kartsonis, a senior Merck executive who explains the logic behind Merck’s $712 price tag. “We set that price before we had any data, so that’s just one contract. Obviously we’re going to be responsible about this and make this drug as accessible to as many people around the world as we can.” The Times uncritically accepts the “obvious.” After usefully reminding its readers that “Merck was criticized two decades ago for selling its H.I.V. drugs at prices unaffordable in Africa,” it claims that the lesson has been learned. “This time, the company recognized the imperative of widening access early.” When total access is the only solution, “widening access” could justifiably be called a crime.

When challenged on their addiction to greed (for which no treatment appears to exist), Big Pharma predictably trots out their standard argument. A Merck spokesperson explained to Newsweek “that estimates of production cost of manufacturing by generics makers don’t take into account the ‘billions that are invested by the research-based pharmaceutical industry’ into research and development.” The spokesperson’s use of the passive to assert that “billions that are invested” cleverly hides the fact that the pharmaceutical companies are not the ones making the investment. Pharmaceutical firms prefer to buy the rights to promising drugs after they have been developed with public funds. What they own is the right to price the drug, which is then sold back at an exorbitant profit to the people who financed its development. 

The New York Times offers another statement by a Merck executive that flirts with comedy. Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, Merck’s vice president for global policy, explains the reasoning behind the company’s generosity in offering lower prices outside of wealthy markets. It is “to make sure that, especially in low- and middle-income countries where they don’t have the strongest health care systems, that this would have very wide access.”

Krishnamoorthy appears to assume that the US is an example of one of “the strongest health care systems.” If so, her idea of “strong” correlates with the ability of some people — including the government — to pay a high price. The US has the world’s most expensive health care system. It also has arguably the most dysfunctional system of any developed nation. From Merck’s point of view, a government that will buy 1.7 million units at $712 is a “strong” health care system. As usual, strength and even purpose are measured in monetary value.

The Times evokes the possibility that Merck may allow governments in the poorest nations to “buy molnupiravir for well under $20 per five-day course, compared with $712 in the U.S. deal.” It later quotes an “industry executive who was not authorized to speak on the record” who “said he expected his firm to produce the drug for less than $10 per course.” What entrepreneur in the world would not accept to make immediate massive sales of a product they took no risk investing in with the guarantee of at least a 100% markup even in the world’s poorest markets?

The Times article goes on to reveal other anomalies that will prevent a global solution. All the calculations are based on how much restraint the pharmaceutical companies are likely to accept in shaving a few percentage points off their exorbitant, no-risk margins. The article even calls this kind of grudging concession “a smart business move for the company,” citing the fact that the firms “know that if they don’t address the access challenges, they will be slammed.”

All this reasoning leads to the inexorable conclusion that pandemics may rage, human lives will be sacrificed through the failure to concert and coordinate, and political chaos may ensue. But a world regulated by the profits of monopolistic companies is here to stay. It remains the unassailable foundation of the modern economy.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Merck’s Gesture to Save Humanity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A Pandemic of Quitting: Why Are Americans Leaving Their Jobs?

READ MORE

But as the first wave of the pandemic began to wind down and signs of an economic rebound emerged, support for remote working began to decline. Soon, companies were setting deadlines for return to the office and coupling them with veiled insinuations about what might happen if workers remained at home. 

Productivity Boost or Bust?

The conflicting positions on return to the office correlate with a host of inconclusive research on the effects of working from home on productivity. As companies move forward, it seems as if they are just making their best guess as to whether they will get the best efforts out of employees who remain at home or from those who come back to the office.

But the data make one thing clear: Not all jobs are well-suited for working from home. In particular, those in jobs requiring a high degree of collaboration find that their productivity and job satisfaction suffer as a result. This means companies must address decreased collaboration when formulating their future plans for balancing office work and telecommuting.

Before delving into the numbers, it is important to distinguish between remote work arrangements for company employees and voluntary remote work professions such as freelancers. While the rise of the gig economy has created a boom in freelance work, with freelancers more than $1.2 trillion to the US economy last year, they are unlikely to ever be in a client’s office. The productivity of freelancers is another issue entirely. 

There is no shortage of data from surveys and studies about the effect of the pandemic on worker productivity. But, of course, as with all data of this type, the question is which to trust. According to one recent survey by Deloitte, of the workers in the UK believed that their colleagues’ productivity had improved or, at worst, remained at the same level following the first lockdown.

In addition, a study of Western European companies by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania showed that business leaders believed their employees were either equally or more productive when working remotely. Numerous studies also indicate a strong preference among employees for remote work options. 

There are many reasons productivity may increase with remote work arrangements, including increased job satisfaction, less stress due to commuting, and a better work-life balance. For women, in particular, remote work has helped balance the demands of their jobs with family life.

According to a 2020 paper by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), US hiring managers noted a short-term from remote work. The OECD also highlights productivity increases at German, Portuguese and Chinese firms that either relied heavily on telecommuting or allowed their employees greater choice in determining where and when they would work. 

But many company executives disagree. The CEO of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon, made no bones about his distaste for remote work arrangements, calling them an “aberration” that companies should quickly correct. His counterpart at JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, raised more , noting that firm cultures rely on face-to-face interactions and that collaboration and learning need personal contact.

Their colleagues across industries agreed, with 90% of C-suite level management and 78% of lower-level management that productivity was their primary concern with remote workers.

Working on Your Own

With so much data seemingly against them, why are these executives so resistant to remote work arrangements? A deeper dive into the data proves they may be correct about the adverse impact of remote work on team productivity, collaboration and culture.

Remote work can be an excellent solution for employees who tend to work on their own anyway. Software coders are a good example. Essentially, home-based coders are analogous to freelancers. Indeed, there has been an explosion in the number of freelance coders over the past year as people looked to replace jobs lost during the pandemic with freelance work. With the average online training course to complete, these transitions were simple and frequent. 

When the task is coding, employees can be more productive working in their familiar and comfortable home environment and choosing their hours. But when tasks involve collaboration, creativity and brainstorming, such as the software design and development process, remote work simply doesn’t cut it.

A 2020 study by Lucidspark shows that it is not just managers who have concerns about the of remote work on collaboration. While many remote workers believed their overall productivity and that of their colleagues suffered, they were far more likely to highlight decreased collaboration. 

In the Lucidspark survey, 75% of remote workers indicated at least some negative effects on collaboration. Breaking this down further, 37% agreed that meetings were less collaborative when conducted remotely. To overcome these problems and reinitiate collaborative project work, a significant number of employees (17%) violated company policies and met in person. 

It is not just the overall collaborative nature of the work that suffers when employees are remote. A quarter of the respondents in the Lucidspark survey agreed that remote work decreased their creativity. Among those, nearly half attributed the creative decline to an inability to collaborate effectively.

The lack of personal interactions also contributes to an increase in job dissatisfaction for workers who previously had highly interactive positions. Remote work led to many employees feeling isolated and siloed. This may be one factor contributing to the stunning increase in US workers quitting their jobs and instead pursuing careers as self-employed freelancers, which has become an increasingly for experienced workers seeking more flexible working arrangements.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Remote work arrangements will continue to increase in popularity for many reasons, including the much-needed flexibility to care for family members during and after the pandemic. So how do companies ensure that they can give their employees flexibility without losing much-needed collaboration?

Hybrid solutions are one avenue organizations may consider, and several companies are now implementing them. Requiring workers to be in the office for two or three days a week facilitates collaborative in-person meetings and allows employees more flexibility to deal with home and family issues.

It is also essential that companies find tools that increase collaboration with remote employees. This means more than just having video conferencing platforms. Instead, businesses need to avail themselves of virtual brainstorming tools, such as virtual whiteboards and mind-mapping tools. Generating engagement during virtual meetings is crucial for effective teamwork. 

Collaboration is essential for businesses and their employees to succeed, and finding the right balance between working remotely and teamwork will require some effort. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Does Working From Home Work? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The New American Art of Inconclusive Conclusions

READ MORE

The radical right has, in the meantime, become with the lab leak idea. Those of us who have experienced — and survived — coordinated campaigns of abuse on social media recognize the signs: Suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, people you have never heard of begin to spam your email or social media accounts. Someone has pointed the trolls in your direction, and you start to wonder, who and why?

Someone’s Errands

In the final days of May, “Mikael” emailed me: “So the most likely truth about Corona is a conspiracy idea that is a threat against democracy? What kind of nut are you that is so wrong? Who’s errands do you run?”

The background to his kind email, followed up by another a few days later, was an published a week earlier in the right-leaning Swedish journal Kvartal. Here, journalist Ola Wong suggested that a — I happen to be its author — published by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) aims to serve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In a gross simplification of what the report actually stated, Wong alleged that it “cautions against blaming China” and “goes so far as to claim that searching for an answer to the origin of the virus and the responsibility for its spread basically amounts to a desire to find a ‘scapegoat’. MSB says that this is the hallmark of conspiracy theories and a threat to democracy.”

What I did in my report was provide an overview of how conspiracy theories around COVID-19 are part of what the WHO has branded the “infodemic” — an infected infoscape in which different actors spread disinformation for various purposes, such as to denigrate their political opponents and attack expert knowledge. I distinguish between six areas of conspiratorial imagination in relation to the pandemic: origins, dissemination, morbidity and mortality, countermeasures in politics and public health, vaccination and metatheories.

Both separately or in various combinations, all these six categories have fueled conspiratorial meaning-making. In some cases, they have driven processes of radicalization toward violent extremism, such as attacks against 5G technology, mass demonstrations leading to political violence or disgusting displays of racist stereotypes.

Moreover, as a historian of ideas, I don’t study the root causes of or treatments for a contagious virus that has killed millions across the globe but rather the conceptions and discourses connected to it. In that sense, I am less interested in what really caused the pandemic and more invested in studying how different concepts — for instance about its origins — are used in (conspiratorial) rhetoric around the subject. It is also not my ambition or task to investigate the likeliness of a lab leak or the possibility that the COVID-19 vaccine contains a microchip. So, first of all, Wong — and, as we will see, others alongside him — has failed to capture the basic premises of the report. Just to make my case, the passage Wong reacted to (the MSB report will soon be available in an English translation), reads:

“T��� question about the origin of the virus and the disease is infected because there is an underlying accusation of guilt. Could anyone who might have known about the existence of the virus also have stopped its dissemination? Was the outbreak of the virus covered up? Was the virus created in a lab or by transmission from animal to human? Questions like these are of course reasonable to ask, but already early on they were connected to what is an attribute of conspiracy theories: to place blame on someone and point out scapegoats. … By calling COVID-19 ‘the China–virus’ a narrative was established in which China was made responsible for the pathogen, disease and in extension its dissemination. In the trail of imposing guilt, racist Sino/Asiaphobic stereotypes were expressed against people with Asian appearance across the globe.”

I then made a parallel to the famous claim made by former President Donald Trump and his followers that climate change is a “Chinese hoax to bring down the American economy” and that, in continuation of this line of thought, COVID-19 now is inserted into the narrative with the twist that it would benefit the Democrats in the 2020 election. I concluded that “in both conspiratorial narratives, scientific expertise is rejected.” Furthermore, I quoted an expert from Yale Medical School (Wong wrongly frames it as my opinion) stating that it is both incorrect and xenophobic to “attach locations or ethnicity to the disease.” I also mentioned that the spread of the virus was blamed on a cabal between the CCP and the Democrats.

Nowhere in the entire report is it ever claimed or even hinted at that it somehow would be wrong or illegitimate to investigate the origins of the virus as a lab leak. It is true that conspiracy theories typically use scapegoating as one of many rhetoric strategies, and that they are, by extension, threatening democracy for multiple reasons. But it is utterly wrong to suggest, as Wong does, that the report somehow alleges that it would be a threat to democracy to investigate the origins of the pandemic as a lab leak or that the report dismissed such claims as a conspiracy theory.

Wong writes: “But if you mention China, you risk being labeled as a racist or accused of spreading conspiracy theories. Why has the origin of the virus become such a contentious issue?” But anyway, “MSB’s message benefits the CCP” and its narrative “that the pandemic is a global problem” (well, isn’t it?) and “not a problem originating from China to which the world has the right to demand answers.”

Chinese Propaganda Machine

Wong identifies such deflection as an outcome of a cunning Chinese propaganda machine, quoting an article that remembers how the US was blamed for the origin of AIDS/HIV in the 1980s in a similar conspiracy mode. Well, had Wong turned a page of the MSB report, he would have found a passage with the heading “T��� US-virus,” which exactly explains that another conspiratorial narrative about the origin of the virus also exists. Consequently, it would have similarly been completely absurd to state that the report “serves the interests of the US” since it treats the narrative about the “US virus” as a typical conspiracy theory.

But such inconsistencies are of no interest to Wong. Instead, he now delves into the by now well-established “new evidence” (it was always suggested as a possibility) that he claims to have “disappeared from the global agenda” (did it really?) about the lab leak theory. The reason why the theory was suppressed, he argues, was because “T��� media’s aversion to Trump created a fear of association,” and “Because of the general derision for Trump, the established media chose to trust virologists such as [Dr. Peter] Daszak rather than investigating the laboratory hypothesis.”

Divide and Rule: What Drives Anti-Asian Resentment in America?

READ MORE

Wong then extensively quotes from science journalist Nicholas Wade pushing for the explanation that “gain-of-function” experiments were carried out in Wuhan and that zoonotic transmission seems unlikely: “What Wade describes is not a conspiracy, but rather an accident for which no one has wanted to assume responsibility.” Wong is obsessed with responsibility and “the day of reckoning” that yet is to come, when China’s guilt finally will be revealed to the global audience. As much as he seems to long for this day when justice will prevail, he implores at the very end of his article to not “let sweeping allegations of conspiracy theories and racism undermine the work to trace the origins of the virus.”

Wong’s article left me puzzled in many ways, almost unimpressed. I did not state anything in my report that Wong purports I did, so it is difficult to understand why a journalist would find it worthwhile challenging the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency with an argument that has no basis whatsoever.

Lab Leak Whispers

Just two days later, Swedish public service radio P1 invited both myself a Wong to come on its to address the question of “What are you allowed to say about the origin of COVID-19?” — stipulating that there is some sort of censorship around the subject. Wong was unable to produce any credible evidence that the CCP ever has called the lab leak theory a conspiracy. There might be, and I am interested to read more about this attribution and its rhetorical function; the in Washington later used such terminology. During the summer of 2021, however, the topic has repeatedly been treated by the Chinese TV channel .

At the time when my conversation with Wong was aired on prime-time radio, the fringes of the Swedish radical right had already sniffed out the potential of the story, propelled by the tabloid Expressen, which in bold letters ran the , “MSB dismisses the lab-leak entirely: follows the line of China.” The article reiterates Wong’s one, but manipulates the content of the MSB report further, alleging that accusations of racism and conspiracy theories stifle the investigation of the origins of COVID-19.

Radical-right agitator Christian Palme posted Wong’s article on one of Sweden’s Facebook pages for academics, , which kicked off a wave of conspiratorial debate. Per Gudmundsson, of the right-wing online news outlet Bulletin, stated in an that the MSB report made him suspicious. Hailing Hunter S. Thompson’s paranoid style of reporting, Gudmundsson alleges that the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency wants to pacify the people with calming messages. He ridiculed attempts to discuss what is reasonable to do when planning interventions and designing counternarratives to toxic disinformation that can act as drivers of radicalization while at the same time execrating Islamist extremism, without any interest in countering it.

Finally, the gross simplifications of Wong’s article had reached the outer orbits of the alternative radical-right media in Sweden, and . Fria Tider referenced the controversial Swedish virologist Fredrik Elgh, stating that it is “senseless” that MSB had dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory (it did not). Samnytt, in turn, amplified the Chinese whispers started in Kvartal to a completely new level. In its own version of reality, the MSB report was allegedly released in order to prevent any investigation of China (not true). Under the heading “Prohibited to ask questions,” Samnytt states: “the message of the report is that it is not allowed to ask questions about the origin of the virus” (also not true).

Moreover, referring to and quoting Gudmundsson’s article on Bulletin, it goes on to state that “instead of questioning the established truths, the report recommends ‘to be in the present and to plant a tree’” — right quote but wrong context — “or to use other methods to calm your thoughts.” The author of the article is Egor Putilov, a pseudonym of a prolific character in the Swedish radical-right alternative media.

And now back to Mikael. Curious to drag out trolls from under their stones (they might explode in daylight), I answered the first email he sent to me; he replied. Mikael characterized himself as a disabled pensioner (Asperger’s) living in a Swedish suburb among “ISIS-fans, clans, psychopath-criminals and addicts etc. which you most likely have taken part in to create/import.” He asserted to have insights about what is happening behind the scenes related to COVID-19 and that the recent reemergence of the lab leak theory only demonstrated his superiority in analyzing world matters: “If I think something controversial, the rest of Sweden frequently thinks the same twenty years later.”

He recommended I look for knowledge outside the small circle of disinformed and obedient yes-people within the “system.” I must admit that Mikael’s email was one of the friendlier online abuses I have experienced. On the same day, I also received a message from “Sten” titled “C*ck” and containing a short yet threatening line, “beware of conspiracy theories and viruses… .”

What If the Scientists Were Wrong?

As historian and political analyst Thomas Frank eloquently has , we should expect a political earthquake if a lab leak is indeed confirmed. Frank claims that what is under attack is science itself. Science, we were told, held the answers on how to combat the pandemic. Experts in public health provided scientific evidence for political countermeasures, despised by those who routinely reject science or feel that their liberties have been infringed upon.

If it is proven that “science has failed the global population,” either by accident, by gain-of-function research getting out of control or, worse, by deliberately creating a bioweapon, both scientists and those who rely on their expertise will come under attack and their authority will be seriously undermined, with unpredictable consequences. Why would people have reasons to believe that climate change is real, that 5G technology is harmless or that cancer might be cured with rDNA treatment? Frank posits that what is at stake is a liberal “sort of cult” of science that was developed against the “fool Trump.” Should it turn out that scientists and experts were wrong, “we may very well see the expert-worshiping values of modern liberalism go up in a fireball of public anger.”

Frank and others, such as Wade and his Swedish apologist Wong, allege that it somehow was the media’s fault to cement the lab leak origin as a crazy conspiracy theory just because it was peddled by a president who made more than while in office. When the “common people of the world” find out that they might “have been forced into a real-life lab experiment,” a moral earthquake will be on its way since they will come to the ultimate realization “that here is no such thing as absolute expertise.”

In the end, this will imply that populism was right all along about the existence of an existential dualism between “the people” and the well-to-do, well-educated ruling “elite” minority that creates and manages an eternal cycle of disasters affecting the majority. I tend to agree: This dualism is in fact a strong driver of populist mobilization and one that reoccurs in most conspiracy theories: we, the suffering people, the victims, against them, the plotting elite, the perpetrators.

But I would like to add to Frank’s conclusions, that the (social) media outlets as much as the radical-right propagandists were immediately able to smell out the potential of the lab leak as a typical frame by which “the people” like Mikael, Sten, Martin and Per (more and more of them — all male — have started contacting me directly) could be pitched against “fake science,” government agencies and politicians.

I would say that this, in fact, is the real purpose. In reality, the radical right does not care one bit about the origins of the virus but has discovered a perfect trope with which public distrust in authority can be deepened further. This is the reason why Wong needed to unleash an unsubstantiated attack against the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. He, as much as Gudmundsson, despises any attempt to provide citizens with tools to decode disinformation and conspiracy theories as to allow informed members of society to judge the accuracy of various claims beyond populist apocalypticism. If media literacy and the ability to detect conspiratorial messages increase, sensationalist media outlets will lose their power.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

One of the three key elements of populism as defined by is a permanent invocation of crisis, breakdown or threat. If this perpetuum mobile is disrupted, the source of populist power is dismantled, which is why Wong and others have to target the firefighters, and why Gudmundsson doesn’t want to hear about how to counter radicalization. The eternal flame of catastrophe is the campfire of populist socialization. Right now, the lab leak theory is a giant burning log providing heat for all these gratifying marshmallows to be grilled and fed to “the people.”

But there might also be other reasons. By pushing the lab leak hypothesis, the radical right makes the case that “Trump was right” about the “China virus” and, if so, he might also be right about the “stolen” election and all other 29,998 lies uttered during his presidency. Moreover, it was the liberal mainstream media’s fault that the lab leak was “buried” (which it never was) because they are all agents of Chinese disinformation (and communism, as we all know, is the great evil of the 20^th century), classical guilt by association. So, in the bigger picture, the lab leak is needed as proof of the infallibility of the great leader in his quest to “drain the swamp.” QAnon will celebrate on the ruins of Capitol Hill.

However, what worries me most is that the lab leak theory is used by the radical right as an attempt to minimize the danger of anti-Asian racism or any other racist attribution and abuse in case of earlier or later crises and catastrophes. Somehow, not only will science be proven wrong and the great leader right, but racism will be defended as a rational and normal reaction to pandemics. Wait, didn’t the Jews poison our wells at one point?

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COVID-19: The Lab Leak Theory Makes a Comeback appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But the scientific community, relayed by the media, calmly explained that, like earlier examples of the coronavirus, it was transmitted to humans by animals and originated with bats. The essential message could be boiled down to: Trust the scientists, who know what they’re talking about.

A year later, with Trump no longer in the White House, suspicion arose even among many scientists that, well, accidents happen, even among all-knowing scientists. But this accident, if that’s what it was, turned out to be particularly embarrassing, with millions of people dying, the global economy thrown into a tailspin and all the rituals of daily life upended, including such things as children’s education and, more drastically (in terms of loss of income), professional sports.

Do Americans Still Trust Their Public Health Agencies? 

READ MORE

When the stakes are so high, suspicion about who and what is to blame takes on a new dimension. The dominant take of 2020 was that it was all about wild animals. The dominant take in the spring of 2021 was that, no, it was people, and specifically scientists, who were the unwitting culprits. Back in 2020, the logic of US politics meant that reasonable people could assume that any assertion by the incumbent president, Donald Trump, known for his addiction to “alternative facts,” was a self-interested lie. Moreover, if a scientist provided a version that contradicted Trump, it was likely to be the truth.

A year later, Trump was gone. The path was cleared for rational public discussions. It became possible to begin weighing evidence before asserting a possibly unfounded opinion. That is when some medically-informed journalists and an increasing number of scientists admitted that human error as the source of COVID-19 was not only possible, but highly credible. 

The confusion spawned by this reversal of public discourse led the presumably level-headed President Joe Biden to commission a report from the intelligence community on the true origin of the pandemic. Last week, The Washington Post on the initial result of that study. The article stated that “President Biden on Tuesday received a classified report from the intelligence community that was inconclusive about the origins of the novel coronavirus, including whether the pathogen jumped from an animal to a human as part of a natural process, or escaped from a lab in central China, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Inconclusive:

Not quite certain enough yet to be codified and promulgated as an official lie

Contextual Note

If Trump could be counted on to produce any version of the “facts” that suited his agenda, Biden came into office with a confirmed capacity for lying about the facts of his own life — including his educational honors and his stance on the Iraq War — but also with a reputation for largely respecting publicly acknowledged truth. He did, however, out of ordinary political opportunism, give credence to the easily debunked reports about Russians paying bounty to Afghans willing to kill Americans. That was because he knew his fellow Democrats were fond of blaming Russians for all the nation’s ills. 

One difference between the two presidents is that Trump was always ready to jump to a conclusion, rejecting the temptation to call anything inconclusive. He painted the world in black and white, from which nuance was excluded. There was, however, one exception. He opposed the CIA’s largely conclusive assessment that Trump’s buddy, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had commanded the bone-saw crew who dismembered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. On that issue, Trump claimed that the evidence was inconclusive.

Most theories that lead to blaming someone other than the initially designated culprit are routinely deemed inconclusive or labeled as conspiracies to the extent that no smoking gun has been found. Those who cling to the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy and the Sirhan Sirhan for the death of Robert Kennedy continue to claim that the mountain of countervailing evidence is inconclusive. In both Kennedy assassinations, the smoke eventually became visible, but the smell of the gunfire had faded. Any forensic traces of actual smoke were of course branded conspiracy theories.

Concerning the report on the origins of COVID-19, the inconclusive assessment appears justified. The case for a lab leak has grown stronger in recent months, but apart from suspicion generated by the fact that the Chinese government has been obstructive, there is no serious evidence to justify it. The Chinese government is by definition obstructive in everything it does, so this could hardly be confused with the kind of exceptional behavior that credibly points toward a coverup. 

The Post offers an interesting explanation of another apparent anomaly: “Proponents of that theory point to classified information, first disclosed in the waning days of the Trump administration, that three unidentified workers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — one of the world’s preeminent research institutions studying coronaviruses — went to the hospital in November 2019 with flu-like symptoms.”

Americans would of course find this suspect, since, given the crippling price of medical treatment in the US, people avoid going to the hospital except in an emergency. The Post helpfully adds: “In China, people visit the hospital for routine and mild illnesses.” Cultural assumptions can always intervene to skew the perception of the meaning of the evidence.

Historical Note

Since COVID-19 is still mutating and raging nearly two years after its outbreak, no one knows when the definitive history of the COVID-19 pandemic will be written. The current wisdom says that, unlike the Spanish flu of a century ago, it will end up not as a chapter of history, with a beginning, a middle and an end, but as an of humanity’s pathological landscape.

In contrast, the history of the deep psychological mutations taking place as a result of the pandemic, especially in Western society, is beginning to take shape. Democracy has always lent itself to contestation. Protest has traditionally served to help define the positive dynamics of democracy, where voices could be heard that might influence what Thomas Jefferson once called “the course of human events.” But the pandemic has accelerated a different, far less positive trend, not of constructive protest but of an utter loss of faith not only in civic authority, but also in every other form of authority. Science itself may be the victim. 

The secular order imposed by modern formally democratic governments depends to a large extent on the belief in the beneficent authority of science and the sincerity of its representatives, the scientists. In recent decades that authority has been shaken by the role powerful economic actors and complicit politicians have played in manipulating science to serve their purposes. The managers of the economy have become accustomed to using their clout to promote comforting lies about science itself, in the name of “national interest” and the “needs of the economy,” which means the health, not of the planet or its population, but of the mighty enterprises that create (and also destroy) jobs.

It is a well-known fact that in US culture, uncertainty and inconclusiveness are unpopular. That aversion was one of the keys to Trump’s electoral success. Not having a decided opinion on something is often seen as an excuse for not getting things done, which means committing the cardinal sin of wasting time. Americans tend to see having and expressing a strong opinion — the art of being assertive — even when poorly informed, as a fundamental right that should never be compromised by the rituals of dialogue and debate.

Nearly 60 years after the JFK assassination, an event that still contributes to undermining Americans’ faith in political authority, an accumulation of more crises has added powerfully to the confusion. The latest Afghan debacle, an unresolved pandemic and mounting evidence of the tragedy of climate change have combined to undermine every American’s hope for establishing the kind of certainty Americans believe to be their birthright.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The New American Art of Inconclusive Conclusions appeared first on 51�Թ�.

So where does that leave public confidence in our health agencies? Not in a good place. According to a recent conducted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 48% of those polled reported little to no trust in the CDC and even less for state and local health departments. 

These low numbers have dire consequences. Public health recommendations that include mask-wearing, proof of vaccination status and compliance are necessary for the United States to effectively combat the COVID-19 Delta variant and minimize morbidity and mortality. If the general public is skeptical and doesn’t have faith in these recommendations, containing the spread of new variants becomes nearly impossible.

The Elusive Importance of Sleep

READ MORE

It is not hard to understand the reasons behind eroding trust in the United States. From the start, the COVID-19 pandemic has been highly politicized. “T���re are deep divisions in this country affecting how people look at public health institutions tied to political views and philosophy,” explains , professor emeritus of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and co-director of the recent poll.

The CDC was once viewed as a neutral agency. Back in 2009, during the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, all of the messaging came directly out of the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The messaging was not politically charged. “T��� minute you start doing discussions out of the White House,” says Blendon, the message gets lost. “It’s no longer the CDC’s goals — it becomes the president’s goals.” In order to lower the political climate in this country, the White House should not be placed at the center of discussions.

In addition to the political climate, there has been mixed messaging from the scientific community. “Data has changed, data moves,” explains Dr. Arthur Caplan, professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU School of Medicine. “T��� public doesn’t fully understand or accept that.” There was a great deal of uncertainty with COVID-19, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. There was a wide expectation among many people that the scientific community would have immediate and definitive answers. It didn’t, and that bred feelings of anxiety, fear and distrust.

Convincing people to get the vaccine is critical at this point in the pandemic. But the tactics need to evolve. “We discovered in the data polling from the variety of unvaccinated people that they are not worried about the disease,” says Blendon. “If you look at other diseases from the past, parents first got worried about polio when they saw pictures of children disabled for their whole lives.”&�Բ�����;Pictures, personal stories that relay the importance of vaccination and what is at stake will work better than statistics.

“T���re was a critical care physician from Alabama who had two patients near dying, they wanted the vaccine but it was too late,” explains Blendon. According to both Blendon and the results from the poll that he oversaw, this is very powerful and this is what it will take to move the needle: “We need to convince people through iron lung pictures, not statistics.”

In addition, Blendon thinks that the public seems to trust their own health care provider: “We need to emphasize local physicians — those voices in Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama will move people over time.”&�Բ�����;The pandemic is being fought on the ground and has nothing to do with politicians and the presidential administration. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Looking back on the past year, it’s become clear that the US could have handled the flow of information better. Had there been more transparency at the beginning of the pandemic, with public health officials explaining that they are learning about the disease in real time and that the recommendations may change, the public may have had more tolerance for an evolving situation. 

We were isolated from each other, connected largely online, with social media serving as the ultimate connector. Everyone became an expert, and every account became a megaphone. Ethical issues emerged from diminishing trust in science. “As science erodes, it opens the door wide for cooks, nuts and bigots,” says Caplan. “If science doesn’t have control over the message, anybody and everybody can pile in,” he points out. There is a large platform of misinformation and, in some egregious cases, so-called experts profiting over the fallacies they espouse. 

American public health agencies have a tough job ahead of them of fixing the distrust among the people who used to rely heavily upon them for guidance and information. But they also need to streamline their messaging and strategize effective recommendations to become a central voice in the fight against this virus so that we can soon look at this pandemic in the rearview mirror. 

 
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Do Americans Still Trust Their Public Health Agencies?  appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Politics of American Protest: A North Korean Twist

READ MORE

Avoiding global catastrophe from the more infectious Delta variant of COVID-19 doesn’t require a huge commitment from people and governments. Richer countries just have to ensure more widespread availability of vaccines, and individuals have to get vaccinated. COVID-19 is not an asteroid on a collision course with the planet. It’s not an imminent nuclear war. It’s an invisible enemy that humanity has demonstrated it can beat. It just requires a bit of cooperation. So, what’s the problem?

Three Problems

Actually, there are three problems. The first has to do with supply, since the richest nations have cornered the vaccine market and have been criminally slow to get doses to poorer countries. On the entire continent of Africa, for instance,  of the population has been fully vaccinated.

The second problem, on the demand side, is the commonplace resistance to the newfangled, in this case a vaccine that was developed very quickly, hasn’t yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has some side effects that are harmful for a very small number of people. Hesitation is understandable. But not when placed against the obvious lethality of COVID-19 and the clear benefits of herd immunity.

The third problem is political. The far right has jumped on the anti-vaccination bandwagon, seized control of the wheel and is driving the vehicle, al-Qaeda-style, straight into oncoming traffic.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Both in the United States and globally, the far right has long been infected by various harmful delusions — the superiority of white people, the fiction of climate change, the evils of government. As the far right has spread, thanks to vectors like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán and Narendra Modi, those delusions have mutated.

Now, with its anti-vaccine opportunism, the far right is circulating a new Delta variant of global stupidity: virally through social media, in a shower of spit and invective on the street and through top-down lunacy from politicians and political parties. COVID-19 and all of its variants will eventually burn themselves out, though at who knows what cost. The latest versions of global stupidity promoted by the far right, however, are proving far more resistant to science, reason and just plain common sense.

Hijacking the Anti-Vax Movement

The Brothers of Italy is a neo-fascist formation that is now polling the  of any political party in the country today. With 21% support, this pro-Mussolini throwback is just ahead of the far-right Lega party. Throw in Silvio Berlusconi’s Forward Italy party at 7% and the hard right looks as if it could form the next government in Italy whenever the next elections are held.

How did the Brothers of Italy grow in several months from a few percent to the leading party in the polls? Led by Giorgia Meloni, a woman who predictably decries Islam and immigrants, the Brothers of Italy started out as a booster of vaccines, which seemed like a pretty safe position in a country that has suffered so much at the hands of COVID-19.

But Meloni abruptly shifted the party’s stance when the Italian government, currently led by technocrat Mario Draghi, introduced a “green pass” that allows the vaccinated to eat in restaurants, go to bars and enter various public places like museums. Meloni  the pass “the final step on the road to the creation of an Orwellian society,” which “limits the freedom of citizens, further devastates the economy and de facto introduces a vaccine mandate.”

Limits the freedom of citizens? The freedom to infect other people with a deadly virus? Effectively, Meloni wants to grant all citizens the same right that James Bond famously possessed: the license to kill. Unfortunately, such nonsense has support outside Italy as well.

Batting for a Pathogen

In France, the government of Emmanuel Macron has instituted a similar health pass as well as mandating that all medical professionals get vaccinated. The response has been ferocious, with several demonstrations of over 100,000 people mobilizing around the country.

It might seem at first glance that the French protestors are just ordinary folks who are sick and tired of government intrusions in their lives, similar to the yellow vests protestors from 2018. But the organizers of these anti-vax protests are the usual suspects from the far right like Florian Philippot, a former top aide of the National Rally’s Marine Le Pen. National Rally and the equally rabid Stand Up France have come out against Macron’s policies. Unfortunately, some leading members of the left-wing France Unbowed party have also endorsed the rallies. As in the United States, French anti-vaxxers are resorting to anti-system conspiracy theories .

Despite the size of these rallies whipped up by the far right, a majority of French  the health pass and nearly 70% of the population has gotten , compared to only 58% in the United States. But the far right sees the anti-vaccine movement as an opportunity to worm its way into the mainstream in France and elsewhere, such as the  in Germany, the  in Poland and  in the Philippines.

Toward this end, the far right has eagerly employed the services of such “useful idiots” as Robert Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most famous face of the anti-vaccine movement. The Polish far-right party Confederation invited Kennedy to speak on-ine to a Polish parliamentary group on vaccines. Kennedy also put his  behind a global day against vaccines that took place last October in 15 countries from Europe to Latin America, which a number of far-right parties helped to organize.

Originally in the United States, vaccine skepticism circulated mainly on the left, where suspicions of chemicals and corporations created a resistance to having just any substance injected into one’s arm. But then along came Donald Trump, the dark conspiracy theories of the alt-right and ultimately QAnon, which focused latent anti-government sentiments against the medical establishment and its COVID-19 vaccines. Suddenly, videos like “Plandemic” were , and prominent anti-vaxxers like “healthy lifestyle advocate”  fell under the sway of QAnon.

Today, in a tired repeat of 2020, US anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are again protesting in front of , bringing their message to and shutting down . If COVID-19 were a wealthy corporation that underwrote such disruptions, these actions would make at least some economic sense. If COVID-19 were a wildly popular musical group or a subversively attractive religious cult that governments were trying to suppress, the frenzy of crowds would be somewhat understandable. But COVID-19 is a deadly virus. Why on earth would anyone go to bat for a pathogen?

The Far Right Has Its Reasons

Conservatives have traditionally supported the powerful pillars of society: the police, the army, the state. Today’s far right is not conservative. It detests the state. It prefers vigilante justice — everyone standing their ground with gun in hand — to the police and the army, since these latter are representatives of the state.

Effectively, the far right embraces the old Hobbesian concept of a “war of all against all,” which was the status quo before the emergence of the state. To achieve this “golden age” of general mayhem, the far right pursues any means necessary. It supports homeschooling to destroy public education, privatization of state assets to weaken the government, and deregulation to tilt the playing field in favor of corporations.

And now, in the age of COVID-19, the far right is even willing to support germ warfare. For that’s what the anti-mask and anti-vaccine ideology amounts to: siding with the novel coronavirus against the sensible policies of the state. One wonders: If the state issued a mandate that required people not to jump off cliffs, would the far right suddenly launch a Lemming Crusade simply to spite the state?

I can well imagine the segment on Newsmax.

Reporter: ��’m here with patriot James Q. Public. He and his family are standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Tell me, James, why are you about to take a big step into the unknown?

James Q. Public: The government can’t tell me what to do. I believe in choice. And this is my choice.

Reporter: Do you think of yourself as a pioneer?

James Q. Public: Absolutely. This socialist government with its Five Year Plans sickens me. I take it one day at a time. One minute at a time.

Reporter: Your youngest child doesn’t look happy about your choice.

James Q. Public: Oh, he’s just a crybaby. He’ll get used to it.

Reporter: Get used to falling off a cliff?

James Q. Public: What makes you think we’ll fall?

Reporter: Well, uh, gravity —

James Q. Public: Come on, man, you believe in all that nonsense those scientists are trying to force down our throats? Vaccines? Climate change? Gravity? Okay, everyone, let’s go. One small step for the Public family, one large step for arrgghhh….!

It would all be grimly amusing, like some pandemic version of the Darwin Awards, if the far right’s Lemming Crusade wasn’t threatening to drag the rest of us off the cliff with it.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Delta Variant of Global Stupidity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Unfortunately, transgender people are still being “othered.” Most recently, the on the official COVID-19 vaccine portal of the government of India has three gender categories: male, female and others. “It sounds discriminating and demeaning,” Dhananjay Chauhan, a leading transgender activist from Punjab, told me over the phone.

Marriage Equality Is Still a Dream for India’s LGBTQ Community

READ MORE

What came as an even greater disappointment was the fact that participation data for transgender persons have been removed from the of the CoWIN online vaccine registration portal. The infographic now reflects only the data for males and females under the vaccination category, delineated in blue and pink respectively.

The figure for “others” can’t even be determined by calculating the difference between the total number of vaccinated and the vaccinated males and females added together because the dashboard lists the overall number of doses administered to date, which includes both the first and second shots. This erasure becomes a journey from “othering” toward rendering the “others” invisible, revealing just how problematic the transgender community’s situation in India really is.

No, I Haven’t Been Vaccinated

On January 16, India began its vaccination drive. However, data show that by May 16, only of “others” have received at least one shot, just 0.013% of the overall number of vaccinated. With the third wave of infections ravaging through the country, the third-gender population is still waiting for vials to get allotted for their vaccination camps. Pushpa Mai, a leading trans activist from Rajasthan, says: “So far, we have been able to vaccinate only 50 transgender persons in Jaipur and we are waiting for our another camp date. As soon as we are sanctioned the vials, we shall proceed further. Till then, what else is in hand than to wait — such is the situation everywhere.”

Simran, from Rajasthan, was coughing during the phone call. She was out of the town to participate in a kinnar sammelan, the community congregation. When asked about getting vaccinated, she snapped: “Didi, why do you keep on asking the same question every time you call? Don’t you know the state already? I HAVEN’T been vaccinated. Would you arrange it for me? Can you?” She said that none of her dera (community house) friends were vaccinated, which has caused a lot of problems.

Sometimes, transgender people who live in deras, those who prefer to call themselves kinnars or hijra and are engaged in traditional community-specific roles, often keep a distance from the transgender people running NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs). Simran relies on badhai for her livelihood, a practice where the hijra or kinnars — who are said to be bestowed with a divine gift — go door to door on festive occasions asking for presents and alms in return for blessings. During the pandemic, this source of income has largely dried up, leaving many helpless and reliant on begging and worse. A vaccination certificate would go a long way to help them return to their traditional way of life.

According to Mai, pooling in NGOs and CBOs is not enough because there are districts and villages that don’t have educated transgender representation to be able to organize such camps or even know whom to approach. With large parts of the transgender population lacking education and tech literacy, many are unable to register online, which is the only option to get in touch with vaccination centers. There is a need to raise awareness through television, newspapers and other media to get transgender people to get vaccinated and convince their friends to do so as well. Mai’s proposal is that besides the approach of looping in NGOs and CBOs, local chief medical health officers should take initiative to get the transgender population vaccinated in their respective areas.

Another roadblock to registering for vaccination is a lack of identity documents. Due to the stigma surrounding them, many transgender people have abandoned their parental homes at a young age or have dropped out of school due to discrimination and outright assault. This means that the majority are left with either no proof of identity at all or only with one that states the gender they were assigned at birth, which they no longer identify with. The provisions of providing them with transgender identity cards are still being discussed out by the government, which couldn’t come soon enough at this critical time.

Vaccine Hesitancy

Alisha (not her real name), from Chandani Chowk, had to resort to prostitution in order to survive during lockdown and is now exposed to a higher risk of catching the virus through her clients. “Initially, I was scared to death of getting this vaccination,” she tells me. “But then I decided that anyhow I am going to die, better take a chance by getting vaccinated; probably I might survive. And I contacted an NGO and got vaccinated through their vaccination ��������.”

This initial vaccine hesitancy Alisha describes has deep roots and is among the factors affecting the low uptake rates among the community. Transgender people often report discrimination at hospitals and public places because of their non-conformity. In colonial times, transgender people, then commonly known as eunuchs, were categorized as habitual offenders or natural-born criminals under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 and were punished for their cross-dressing practice. Historic persecution not only rendered transgender people invisible in the public sphere but also laid the foundations of a transphobic society.  

To this day, transgender people are seen as a matter of curiosity. “T���re are various layers of discrimination in health care access in this country. The doctors are curious about the transgender identity, and so exploit them in the process,” Shuvojit Moulik, founder of Civilian Welfare Foundation, a Kolkata-based NGO, LiveMint. During my research, many reported that doctors and medical professionals would examine their genitals even when the only complaint is a cold or a cough. Many report . It is hardly a surprise that transgender people try to evade these discriminating and transphobic spaces, preferring to rely on traditional medicine or local quacks for treatment.

Shreya Reddy, who identifies as a transwoman and works as a clinic manager at a transgender health center in Hyderabad, points out the irony that even those transgender volunteers running the vaccination camps aren’t taking the jabs. This often creates further skepticism among those who come to the vaccine camps.

Exposure to hormone therapies, HIV and complex sex reassignment surgeries leave transgender people immunocompromised and thus more vulnerable, and understandably more skeptical about the side effects of a new vaccine. According to , “communities that are underrepresented in medical trials, including those for vaccines, have developed considerable mistrust in the overall effect certain medicines and products will have on their health.” This is compounded by the fact that the scarcity of doctors who specialize in gender reassignment has resulted in many transgender people reporting being treated like subjects of an experiment by plastic surgeons who lack the necessary expertise.

Reddy shares her own experience of vaccine hesitancy. She says that there is no information regarding the possible side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, like fatigue, fever and body pain. Because of this, the severity of post-vaccination symptoms made many like herself who have undergone gender reaffirmation surgery believe that they were going to die. She herself felt pain and dizziness for two days after receiving a shot, thinking that something has gone wrong. Despite being a health worker, Reddy had no one to assuage her fears.

A Time for Recognition

Following criticism of the low vaccine uptake among the community, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued to states and union territories to facilitate unhindered and indiscriminate vaccination for transgender persons. The states invited community organizations to act as a bridge to get the transgender population vaccinated. But since transphobia has them to live on the margins of society, unidentified, local authorities don’t even have proper records of the transgender population and need the community to help them reach this most vulnerable group.  

The complete erasure of vaccination data on a site like CoWin deals a further blow to representation and equality. It is high time that the Indian government and society acknowledge that if transgender persons are being “othered” or neglected in something as seemingly innocuous as writing, this will inevitably translate to deadly neglect in real-life terms. Thus, the primary need here is to impart their transgender identity on registration forms and certificates and abandon the anonymous and dismissing “others” classification. There must be the inclusion of the transgender population in other sets of government data to address their needs and demands. Only then will there be a realistic hope for the emancipation of this long-marginalized community.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s COVID-19 Vaccination Drive Is Failing the Transgender Community appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There are some more surprising trends hidden in recent research, however. One of these is that resignation rates are at a historic high and that many workers are now considering quitting their jobs. According to a Microsoft workplace trends survey, 40% of Americans are leaving their posts this year.

Will Women Return to the Office?

READ MORE

This is surprising because, back at the beginning of 2020, most analysts were forecasting that the pandemic would force employees and employers into a more precarious position and that quit rates would therefore reduce. However, the experience of lockdown appears to have made many people realize that their current job is not the one they really want.

A pandemic of quitting might sound like it would have dire economic consequences, but, in fact, the opposite might be true. In fact, the hesitancy of many Americans to leave their job may have held the economy back for much of the past 30 years. This means that any recent prognostications on how to save the US economy might be overlooking an important factor and that the “inflatable” economy of today is fundamentally different to that before the pandemic.

Stagnation

In order to understand why more Americans are thinking about quitting, it’s instructive to review what we know about why people quit their jobs in general — or rather, what we don’t know. There is a slight correlation between economic success and employee turnover, with more people changing jobs during booms than in lean times. The rate at which people quit their jobs has been falling ever , and no one knows why.

That hasn’t stopped economists and labor market analysts from coming up with possible explanations. Some say that the power of employers has been growing over the past 40 years, and this makes it more difficult to quit. Others point to the rise in non-compete clauses over the same period. However, these explanations don’t seem that plausible when you consider that resignation rates have been falling across all industries and across all income levels, even in sectors with highly competitive labor markets.

Instead, others argue, we need to look at benefits. Benefits have become a far larger part of employee compensation over the past four decades, and it is speculated that this might be one of the reasons why wages haven’t risen in the same period. Employer-linked benefits can now amount to many thousands of dollars a year, and this may make it more difficult for people to quit their jobs.

Then there is the most direct explanation, one that is the most worrying. It might simply be the case that people are they don’t like because they are not motivated to reenter the labor market. In other words, the majority of Americans might be just getting by, unhappy with their job but not to the extent that they would change it. 

Catalyst for Change 

The pandemic might be the catalyst for that change. Research suggests that the move to home working caused by the pandemic has led many people to reassess how happy they are in their jobs, and their conclusions have not been positive.

This makes a lot of sense, of course. For people who were “languishing” before the pandemic, their lack of professional fulfillment may have been hidden by the everyday perks of their job like good relationships with their colleagues or the ability to travel at the company’s expense. Lockdown and remote working changed all that and, with it, employees’ attitudes.

This has been a dramatic shift. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ , 2.5% of the employed quit their jobs in May. That’s down from the record 2.8% in April but still higher than at any other point since at least before 2001. Plus, consider that the quit rate was only 2.3% in 2019 when unemployment was just 3.6%, compared with 5.8% this May.

The long-term effects of this epidemic of quitting are somewhat difficult to predict, but most economists believe that they will be positive. People leaving their jobs and getting new ones generally leads to them drawing higher wages, providing a boost to the consumer sector. Equally, changing jobs affords the possibility for people to gain new skills and experience, which will have a long-term effect on the sustainability of the economy.

Equally, there are also encouraging signs that dynamic labor markets can improve equality. According to a 2020 survey conducted by Freshbooks, on average, women-owned businesses are taking nearly to recover from the financial setbacks brought on by COVID-19 compared to businesses owned by men. Such issues could be remedied by a more dynamic labor force.

The Long View

Taking a broader view, of course, it could be argued that the recent increase in the quit rate is more reflective of short-term frustrations than long-term transformation. Many workers have, after all, been for much of the past year, and that’s a lot of time for slight annoyances to turn into resignation-level frustration. 

This might be driving a lot of people to quit right now, but then normality will reassert itself. Given the spikes in the unemployment rate, we might enter into a period where people are more risk-averse and less likely to quit their jobs than they were before the pandemic.

This is certainly what employers are hoping for. In fact, at the moment, many are worried that the pandemic has fundamentally changed the relationship between employers, customers and staff. In some ways, it has accelerated processes that were already visible in the broader economy. For instance, it is now expected that will be conducted online by 2030. On the other hand, it may well be that what we are seeing in the increased quit rate is a shift in which employees can demand more from their employers.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

We are already seeing this, to some degree. Many companies are finding it so difficult to recruit staff that they are offering more flexible schedules and remote work, alongside higher wages and even more extensive employee benefits. Companies across the economy, from casinos to high-end law firms, are also offering in hope that these special payments will be enough to keep restive employees in their new jobs.

Regardless of whether this shift is long-term or short-term, it is great news for employees. With a more dynamic labor market and the threat of a full-blown labor shortage, employees are going to see major incentives to stay in their current jobs. This, in turn, will lead to increased training and more money in the pocket of the average American. And so it might not be tech innovation that will save the economy after all but millions of people quitting their jobs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A Pandemic of Quitting: Why Are Americans Leaving Their Jobs? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

So, what happened? First, a lot of ignorant and selfish people decided not only to stay that way, but to avoid COVID vaccinations as well. They started getting sick and dying, but not enough of them did so to end the plague. Instead, they just spread the disease, now a highly contagious variant, to other unvaccinated people. Then, something really bad happened: It was soon discovered that those ignorant and selfish people were also spreading the disease to vaccinated people, who just haven’t started dying in large numbers, at least not yet.

Why the US Will Not Achieve Herd Immunity

READ MORE

Meanwhile, the commercial machine and its political allies were ramping up to open everything and let the good times roll. It quickly became hard to find a seat at the bar or a hotel room at the beach. Airports and airplanes were filled again with vacationing families, rental cars were so scarce that it is hard to imagine that turnaround time included a drop of disinfectant, and those ever-popular buffet tables were dusted off for the hungry hoards. Forgetting your mask at home or in the car was deemed to be of little consequence.

The US federal government response was to go all in on vaccines as the obvious path to public health and commercial revitalization. The vaccines are now everywhere to be had and free of charge. The only problem with this plan is that it is playing out in America, where freedom is defined by way too many as not having to do anything you don’t want to do that you can get away with. The well-being of others be damned.

This situation would be easy to ignore if it involved only a fringe group of pock-marked anti-vaccine individualists whose children regularly get the measles and who never go to school. But this time, for some reason, the vaccine-resistant crowd also includes a large percentage of Republicans who are not pock-marked and whose children get a whole raft of vaccines so they can go to school. Then throw in a bunch of members of religious covens whose leaders are chatting with their god about this issue and then let the flock in on the big secret that their god definitely isn’t vaccinated against COVID-19 (even though there seems to be some disagreement about god’s smallpox vaccination status).

“F������dz�”

There are more ironies here than I can keep up with. Let’s start with “freedom” of choice. Many of those resistant to vaccines resist government “interference” in personal health choices, even though many of those same people are fully engaged in trying to get that same government to prevent women from making their own reproductive choices. Think about that for a moment.

More ironic yet, many of those in the “freedom” crowd seem untroubled by most government health mandates, yet all of a sudden, putting a vaccine in their bodies to help themselves and others avoid the ravages of a relentless virus has become some political and social litmus test for them. Seatbelt requirements, drinking and driving prohibitions, no smoking in restaurants, a host of required vaccines for employment, travel and schooling all make the good health mandate list. Meanwhile, mindless resistance to life-saving COVID vaccines and masking requirements has become a right-wing badge of honor, generally until the bodies of right-wing family and friends start piling up.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

However, maybe the grandest irony of all is that the leader of the pack of virus resisters, Donald Trump, is himself fully , as are at least his wife and the precious . It is bad enough that the Trump clan lied its way to prominence and supposed wealth and that when empowered to do the right thing almost always did the wrong thing. Then, when a pandemic was inserted into the mix, the whole crew conspired to undermine any meaningful national response while over 500,000 people in America died on their watch. While others were gasping for their last breath, Trump got vaccinated just to make sure it wouldn’t be him on that ventilator.

You would think that as the actions of the Trump clan played out before adoring eyes, those ignorant and selfish acolytes would be pushing others out of the way to get vaccinated. But instead, they can’t wait to parade their “freedom” from vaccine tyranny at every super spreader event they can find, while the vaccinated and protected leader of the pack cheers them on. This seems to work really well until that stairway to heaven leads to a COVID ward in a local hospital surrounded by other ignorant and selfish people, many of whom now use their last breathes to beg for the vaccine.

Another Wave

In the face of this insanity, it seems that it is slowly dawning on some public officials that another wave of deadly COVID disease and disorder is closing in. Lots of parents are suddenly worried about their children, some private concerns are worried about something other than their short-term bottom line, and lots of people anticipating a return to crowded workplaces and those already there are staying home. There are even a few people with September travel plans suddenly concerned that playa wherever will be a petri dish when they get there. More importantly, it may be sinking in that there is only one way out of this: mandated vaccines wherever the authority exists to mandate them.

To do this, there can be no more coddling of the ignorant and selfish. Get vaccinated or get out. Everywhere that the federal government has the authority to do so should require proof of vaccine for employment and entry. Start with federal buildings, museums and entertainment venues, airplanes and trains, and the military and military bases. Examine every interstate commerce authority for ways to tighten the vise. No vaccine, no entry, period.

In those pathetic states and localities where resistance overwhelms public health, everything that can be done to isolate those populations from the rest of us needs to be done. No conventions in Atlanta, no cruise ships docking in Miami, interstate highway dead zones, hotel and restaurant chains shuttering their venues, testing and mask mandates for those who knowingly come in contact with the unvaccinated while engaging in interstate commerce, and no event licenses or advertising dollars to sports and entertainment venues that won’t mandate vaccines for entry.

If this gets done before the viability of today’s vaccines begins to wane or is crushed by new COVID-19 mutations, Americans, at least, have a chance to put the pandemic behind them. We are lucky that we have this opportunity at all, but we can only take advantage of it if we move swiftly and decisively to mandate vaccines and isolate those who won’t comply. If accomplished, America might then have the moral authority, the scientific and manufacturing strength, and the financial resources to lead the rest of the world to the same place.

*[This article was co-published on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post “F������dz�” Failed to Set Americans Free appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Nowhere is this more obvious and dangerous than the way in which the vaccinated dance around the unvaccinated. If you are paying attention, there is simply no good excuse not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in America, with some very minor medically-sound exceptions. But instead of just saying that in a straightforward way and then demanding policies and programs that mandate vaccinations, we are acting like vaccinations are some prize for knocking over a stack of steel bottles at a carnival stand: “Step right up, little lady, a quick flick of the needle and you are on your way with this keepsake stuffed elephant. Bring that big guy along with you, and you win the daily double, the stuffed elephant and a genuine MAGA hat.”

Biden’s Pirates of the Caribbean

READ MORE

It is time to stop begging ignorant people to do something smart, and selfish people to do something selfless. How about: “Step right up little lady and show me your vaccination certificate if you want to eat here. Same for you big guy.” Or: “Mom, your kid wants to play high school football, but he hasn’t turned in the required COVID vaccination certificate.” Or my personal favorite: “I would have invited you to join us, but you are not vaccinated, and adding someone so stupid and selfish to the group seemed like a bad idea that would only serve to validate your stupidity and selfishness.”

Validating willful ignorance is never a good idea, but it is a really bad idea when doing so puts people at risk. Further, most of us usually try to avoid truly selfish people, so let’s double down now to contribute to the common good. For impact, we have to be willing to tell the ignorant and selfish what we are doing and why. We have to be willing to demand that our institutions meet this challenge as well. It is beyond time for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to aggressively mandate vaccinations wherever they are authorized to do so.

Another useful component of the avoidance vocabulary is the word “.” The word seems to imply someone with whom you work, a co-worker. It shouldn’t apply to the SOB in your midst who seeks to undo everything you are trying to do. So, stop using the word “colleague” for those you believe to be willfully ignorant, selfish, dangerous and/or just plain too stupid to get out of your way. This is particularly so in the public arena, where every moron seems to be somebody’s colleague during any discourse — “My colleagues are unable to see that making it harder for black people to vote is racist behavior.” They could either not be your “colleague” or not be “racist,” but they shouldn’t ever be both.

Normal vs. New Normal

How about “normal” and “new normal” to make things sound just great as we surge forward as a nation? Returning to “normal” only works if your “normal” was fine with you. It avoids the uncomfortable truth that many people don’t want to return to their “normal,” because it sucked. As for a “new normal,” it is hard to imagine a less precise way of confronting the critical need for change to actually achieve a more perfect union. It surely creates an easy path to avoiding any measured discussion about hunger, poverty, access to meaningful health care, access to quality education, rampant gun violence, and racial and social justice, among other difficult issues.

So, when I hear people say they want a “new normal,” it sounds a lot to me like they are talking about some vision of a better world that will miraculously emerge if we hold hands and pray a lot. What is needed is not a “new normal” but a new and transformed America where eliminating poverty is more important than giving up a tax break for your vacation home, where health care isn’t rationed by insurance companies and their medical allies, where school buildings and the teachers in them provide the same resources to black children that are provided to white children, and no child, not a single one, goes to bed hungry in America.

That’s the America that I want to see and to which there is so much resistance. “Normal” and “new normal” are comfort food concepts to spare the already comfortable the discomfort of sacrifice for the common good.

And then just when you think you might be getting at least some Americans to turn their attention to a better life on Earth for the community of man, along comes space “tourism” to further distract a population grasping for the most banal of distractions. If you can’t afford Disneyland, an RV or even a trip to Taco Bell, America’s wealthy can give you the illusion of tourism in space. It is truly heartening to hear the mega brats talk so lovingly of opening up space to the masses, while working so hard to avoid sharing their wealth with those same masses. And take note that this illusion is getting enough attention and gushing goodwill to give us another touchstone on the golden road to “normal.”

While I await my economy center seat with Kim Kardashian on one side and Martha Stewart on the other, I am getting pumped up for the debates to come as schools are about to open and the parental handwringing season of rage is commencing. This is so much fun, because in America’s dysfunctional democracy school decisions are seen as local decisions, thereby ensuring that everything from masks to midriffs, from black books to white books, from defunding teachers to defunding cops and the like, will be on the agenda somewhere everyday beginning now.

This will be fine theater that is inconsistent with informed dialogue and ensures further avoidance of confronting systemic issues of import. Optics again will win the day, and the symbolism of preserving norms will overwhelm the content of change. The real losers this time will be the kids who will have to watch their parents stuff social, political, economic and moral genies back into the bottles from which they have again emerged, while further polluting the minds of the same kids they say they are trying to save.

It seems beyond hope that all of this avoidance of meaningful change and the vocabulary that enables that avoidance will engender an equal and opposite reaction. The reason is simple: Only the forgotten are seeking meaningful change while so many in the rest of the nation want nothing more than continued amnesia.

*[A version of this article was co-published on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Confronting America’s Drive to Collective Amnesia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But that is not all. One of Biden’s most intimate advisers during last year’s election campaign, economist and former director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama, Larry Summers, has been leading a vociferous campaign opposing Biden’s policies on the grounds of a lurking . He fears that the combined effect of COVID-19 relief and an ambitious infrastructure project accompanied by diverse social reforms will stretch the economy to the point of triggering uncontrollable inflation, the bugbear of traditional politicians. Biden may want to be remembered as the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Summers appears to be inspired by the thinking of FDR’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover.

Hoover was the president on whose watch the 1929 stock market crash occurred. Historians have identified excessive leveraging and the inflation of asset prices as the main contributing factor to the 1929 crash that marked the end of the Roaring ‘20s. That sobriquet for a decade that followed World War I and left in its wake the Great Depression reflects the wild optimism that reigned at the time. The US had survived a “war to end all wars” and now embraced what President Warren G. Harding called “the return to normalcy.”

Proud of their role in ending Europe’s war, Americans — though deprived of alcohol that had been banned in 1919 by a constitutional amendment — interpreted normalcy as an open invitation to self-indulgence. Throughout that roaring decade, the stock market reached for the ceiling before crumbling to the floor in 1929.

To avoid the mistakes that led to depression, politicians have since crafted their preferred ways of fending off imminent disaster. They called the latest trick, perfected after 2008, quantitative easing (QE), a fancy name for the printing of money gifted to banks and corporations skilled at keeping it out of the reach of ordinary people. Quantitative easing magically inflated asset prices with little effect on the consumer index, a phenomenon all politicians gloried in for two reasons. First, it avoided consumer blowback against price-tag inflation. That always puts voters in a bad mood, threatening prospects of reelection. Second, QE meant that there would be unlimited cash available to corporate donors to finance their political campaigns.

The COVID-19 crisis arrived at a point where interest rates had fallen to close to 0% and in some cases had gone negative. The encouraging news concerning effective vaccines at the end of 2020 gave hope of a rapid return to Hardingesque normalcy. But today, things have become more complicated. The new Delta variant of the coronavirus threatens the optimists’ vision of a prosperous post-pandemic world. Add to that the raging debate about spending trillions to implement the long-delayed response to a crumbling infrastructure in the US and it becomes clear that many now doubt the likelihood of a smooth transition to a new normalcy, in which the market’s productive forces, guided by an invisible hand, will solve problems on their own while government spending is reined in.

The question arises: Is it reasonable to print money to solve otherwise unsolvable problems? Larry Summers says it will provoke inflation. Janet Yellen, Biden’s treasury secretary, disagrees: “Is there a risk of inflation? I think there’s a small risk. And I think it’s manageable.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Inflation:

1. The characteristic expansion of all types of bubbles during their formation and preceding the moment at which they burst

2. A general characteristic of any system that seeks to build an elaborate superstructure of hyperreality to replace traditional human activities, institutions, economic relations and social behavior, whose elements range from methods of governing and ideological frameworks to acceptable forms of public rhetoric

Contextual Note

Nobel Prize-winning economist, New York Times columnist and loyal Democrat this week that “while ��’m in the camp that sees the current inflation as a transitory problem, we could be wrong.” He thus acknowledges that the threat of inflation is real while reiterating an optimism similar to Yellen’s. Consistent with The Times’ editorial line, he aligns with the president’s political agenda of Biden in his quest to be remembered as a second FDR.

Some have that Summers’ bitterness about not having been handed the job of treasury secretary explains his loud complaining about the danger of inflation. But Summers may have missed the real threat facing the economy, just as he not only the situation in 2007 but even the Asian crisis in the 1990s. “In terms of judgment, in forecasting his record has been atrocious,” according to Joseph Stiglitz. But does that mean Yellen and Krugman are correct?

Who’s to Blame for a Tanking Economy?

READ MORE

Theron Mohamed, writing for Business Insider, cites a number of experts who beg to differ, including Michael Burry, who famously predicted the 2008 crash and became the hero of the book and film, “T��� Big Short.” These market analysts see something than inflation in the offing. According to Mohamed, “Michael Burry and Jeremy Grantham are bracing for a devastating crash across financial markets. They’re far from the only experts to warn that rampant speculation fueled by government stimulus programs can’t shore up asset prices forever.”

Whereas Summers and Krugman are debating possible effects on the consumer index, Burry and Grantham are talking about a market meltdown, possibly a new depression. And they dare to designate the true villain: the obsession with shoring up asset prices.

Historical Note

A recent study by Yale Insights points to a historical constant that exists despite radically changing market and regulatory conditions. “Downward leverage spirals are believed to be one of the main triggers of the 1929 U.S. stock market crash,” professor Kelly Shue points out. “Leverage-induced fire sales were also a contributing factor to the 2007-2008 financial crisis in the U.S.” She adds that the same phenomenon underlay the Chinese stock market crash in 2015.

Measures taken with the intent of avoiding a depression have paradoxically aggravated the conditions that may result in a monumentally devastating depression. The intention of the Treasury and the Fed to employ quantitative easing to “shore up asset prices forever” contains one significant error: the belief in “forever.” It parallels the belief of every administration since George W. Bush — now for the first time called into question by Biden — that American wars can also be carried on forever.

The link between the two may be more direct than most people recognize. Military investment and activity have become the core of the US economy. Bloated defense budgets are today’s “pump priming.” Wars keep a cycle of investment alive that nourishes not only industries that directly benefit from defense procurement but more broadly the entire technology sector, which has become the locomotive of the civil economy.

The problem may even sink deeper into the structure of the US economy. Robert Kuttner recently a “dirty little secret of the recent era of very low inflation.” He believes that “the prime source of well-behaved prices has been shabby wages.” Citing “outsourced manufacturing, gig work, weakened unions, and a low-wage service sector,” he notes that the economy’s very real gains from productivity growth have all “gone to the top.”

When nearly all incremental wealth is tied up in assets that may come tumbling down at any moment, nobody is secure. After the crash, the rich will lament their losses and their inability to rebuild. Millions will lose their gig work and below-survival wages in real jobs with no hope for a rebound. And with COVID-19 still creating havoc and climate change more and more visibly aggravating its effects, the problem of inflation we should be most worried about is the verbal inflation of experts who believe their discourse is capable of shoring up a failing system.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can an Inflatable Economy Survive? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Until recently, UBI was a utopian proposal relegated to academic discussions. But the pandemic has led to a debate about UBI as a potential tool of public policy. Now, several basic income programs are running around the world. Advocates see in UBI an instrument to build more resilient societies in the face of economic crises, income inequality and automation. Critics argue that governments should strengthen existing social programs instead.

Can a Presidential Candidate Convince America on Universal Basic Income?

READ MORE

In June 2020, Spain monthly payments of up to €1,015 ($1,200) to the poorest families. Germany has a small-scale pilot study to take place over three years. As part of the program, 120 Germans will receive monthly payments of €1,200. In the United Kingdom, a motion to introduce UBI was signed last year by more than 100 from across the political spectrum. At the start of the pandemic, the US government up to $1,200 to adults earning below $99,000 a year; a second stimulus package meant Americans received even more money. Thus, it seems that the crisis has shifted the UBI debate, at least in some European countries and in the US.

However, in South and Central America, the debate on the desirability of UBI could “not take off, given the very severe fiscal constraints in most countries,” says Oscar Ugarteche, a Peruvian professor of economics. This is despite the Bolsa Familia (Family Allowance) experiment of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the former Brazilian president. This indicates that the debate is partly country-specific and that the implementation of UBI may require “several national experiments, which are likely to influence corresponding variations in policy design,” according to counselor Andrew Cornford.

Indeed, UBI is not a one-size-fits-all program. Many questions need to be considered. For example, should payments be issued per household or adult? Should everyone be eligible for UBI or only those receiving low salaries? Should a universal basic income be temporary or permanent? How will it affect the willingness of people to find a job or to continue working? How would UBI be financed?

The first step is to assess the feasibility and implications of UBI. To do so will require building on the experiences of small-scale studies, comparing their results and collecting further evidence. Thus, it could be a long time before governments and the wider population see such a program. That is unless the current health crisis can serve as a catalyst for socioeconomic change, contributing to make UBI part of the legacy of the pandemic. 

By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski

Author’s note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: Where does the debate over a universal basic income stand in your region? Has the pandemic had an impact on discussions about UBI?

“…ensure that everyone has a floor on which to build [their] life…”

“World GDP in 2020 reached $90 trillion. To bring this number down to earth, it means that what we presently produce is equivalent to $3,800 a month per four-member family, amply sufficient for everyone on earth to live a dignified and comfortable life. A modest reduction in inequality and a flat redistribution to adults is sufficient to ensure that everyone has a floor on which to build [their] life. Huge financial resources lay idle in the world, growing not through productive investment, but financial rent. Taxing them might make these resources useful, stimulating demand and production at the bottom while drastically reducing poverty. Those who do not need the support might just be taxed back for the amount.”

Ladislau Dowbor — economist, professor at the Catholic University of Sao Paulo, consultant many international agencies

“…a certain confusion reigns here around the notion…”

“In France, the debate concerning a universal basic income remains confined to academic spheres and to a few militant groups. The issue was, however, put in the political agenda by the socialist candidate in the last presidential elections (spring 2017), that is to say before the outbreak of COVID-19. This candidate achieved a very poor score. The crisis itself does not seem to have brought the problem to the fore. It is true that a certain confusion reigns here around the notion: Is it a real universal basic income, a negative tax, aid to citizens without resources or a subsidy to all residents? The imagination is lost, which does not help the political inscription of this notion, nor the serene economic discussion.”

Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)

“…with the COVID crisis, the idea is resurfacing…”

“In June 2016, a proposal to introduce a universal basic income was rejected by three-quarters of Swiss voters and all Cantons. With the COVID crisis, the idea is resurfacing, but to gain traction, it will need to address two issues. The first is how to finance it, especially if UBI should be enough to live on, without having adverse incentives for work and the tax base. The second is why provide support to everyone instead of those in need? Even with the pandemic, the vast majority of the population have kept their income and thus do not need support.”

Cedric Tille — professor of macroeconomics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva

“…dissatisfaction with existing social-security systems…”

“Dissatisfaction with existing social-security systems has recently led to greater attention to the universal basic income. Perhaps the best-known experiment is that carried out on a limited sample of recipients in Finland. In the recent municipal elections in the UK, almost 300 candidates of the Green Party were declared supporters of the UBI. Supporters stress the automaticity and universality of the UBI, which are believed to contribute to wellbeing and the ease with which beneficiaries are able to handle other problems of their lives. Critics stress the undesirability of the delinking of financial benefits from particular welfare services owing to its likely impact on popular support for these services. This is a debate that requires several national experiments, which are likely to influence corresponding variations in policy design, including other solutions such as negative income taxes or simply strengthened social security.”

Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services

“…the proposal could draw away people from the labor force…”

“During the pandemic, the Spanish left coalition government accelerated a plan called Ingreso Minimo Vital, expected to hand out between €462 and €1,015 per month according to the conditions of each household unit. This in part replaces or adds up to existing regional schemes. Until March 2021, 210,000 beneficiaries had their submission approved, of a total of 1.3 million requests. The unions and a few NGOs — some of them very efficient in relieving newly emergent poverty — denounced the slowness and administrative maze in the process. The Spanish unemployed still number 3.6 million (15.99%), plus about 750,000 in furlough schemes. The proposal, if successful, could draw away people from the labor force, whereas we need public-private policies aiming to the contrary.”

Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group

“…these measures would provide tangible help that women need right now…”

“For myriad women in economies of every size, along with trailing income, unpaid care and internal work burden have exploded. While all are facing unprecedented challenges, women continue bearing the brunt of the economic and social fallout of COVID-19. Pandemic-induced poverty flow will also widen the gender poverty gap, which means more women will be pushed into extreme poverty than men, thereby revealing women’s precarious economic security. Introducing direct income support to women would mean giving cash directly to women who are poor or lack income that can be a lifeline for those struggling to afford day-to-day necessities during the pandemic. Further, these measures would provide tangible help that women need right now.”

Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India

“In Central America, it has not even been considered…”

“In Mexico, the discussion went to Congress as a proposal in June 2020 and is unapproved with a cost of 1% of GDP. In Central America, it has not even been considered as it is too onerous for the limited public finances of those countries. In Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Argentina, among other countries in the region, there is public discussion on the desirability of UBI promoted by ECLAC and UNDP and has not taken off, given the very severe fiscal constraints in most countries. UBI would not reduce inequalities as people who do not need it would get it and families with many adults in one household would get a bigger share than those with children.”

Oscar Ugarteche — visiting professor of economics in various universities

“…at the center of the most dynamic debates…”

“T��� pandemic triggered a socioeconomic downturn — already sharpened by the 2008 debt crisis — that raised economic uncertainty and widened inequalities. Fundamental rights and basic life parameters are at risk, especially for the poorest of the poor. Scholars, experts and citizens feel that it’s surely the time to voice their support for a series of socioeconomic initiatives — the universal basic income being at the center of the most dynamic debates. The southern Mediterranean countries and Greece prioritized the pandemic effects and kept aside for a short period of time the austerity measures. However, Greece is expected to turn back to the economic stability narrative, as described during the debt crisis, a fact that disempowers a possible engagement to the UBI debate. If this becomes — as it should — an international matter, weaker economies will follow.”

Christos Tsironis — associate professor of social theory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece

“…popularizing the idea of universal basic income in the US…”

“T�󲹲԰��, Andrew Yang, for popularizing the idea of universal basic income in the US. Yang ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, offering the “,” a UBI of $1,000 a month to every American adult, as a solution to the eventual replacement of (nearly all) humans with automation. He scarcely answered how his UBI was to be funded, a significant, but not insurmountable, problem for UBI’s proponents. UBI skeptics were somewhat silenced when the former and current administrations sent out modest checks to those who lost jobs in the pandemic, in a series of massive economic rescue packages. Maybe the rescue plans are a nascent solution to UBI funding: higher taxes, deficit spending and pump priming.”

Kara Tan Bhala — president and founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics

“Italy introduced two years ago the Reddito di cittadinanza…”

“Italy introduced two years ago the Reddito di cittadinanza, with 1.2 million Italians receiving this first attempt of universal basic income (€560 on average), at the condition of refusing no more than two job offers. In two years, only a small number of citizens actually signed a contract, as most offers were short-term. On the other hand, Italy just presented its Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza )PNRR), consisting in €235.1 billion. Roughly 27% of the resources of the plan will be devoted to the digital agenda, 40% to investments to counteract climate change and 10% to social cohesion. Particular attention was paid to the historically disadvantaged Mezzogiorno of southern Italy (€82 billion, of which 36 in infrastructures), with projects involving young people and women, groups hit hard by the socioeconomic impact of the pandemic.

Valerio Bruno — researcher in politics and senior research fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR).

*[A version of this article was originally published by  and .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Has the Pandemic Boosted the Idea of Universal Basic Income? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Women Become Collateral Damage in COVID-19 Pandemic

READ MORE

As some of us begin to return “back to normal,” a new threat is emerging. Research indicates that men are far more likely to want to come into the office than women, threatening to bring back the days when office spaces were dominated by men. What does this mean for the future of gender equality in the workplace?

After the Storm

First, let’s look at the raw numbers. A recent UK-based poll of over 2,000 business leaders, office managers and employees shows that almost want to work from home at least once a week when the pandemic is finally over, versus just 56% of fathers. Given that many employers are keen to accommodate the wishes of their staff when it comes to work format, this means within a few short years, we could see offices that are less gender-balanced than they are at the moment.

It could be contended, of course, that this does not matter so much. The experience of the pandemic has proven to many employers that it’s more than possible to build a without interrupting business operations. There are numerous tools that allow most things to be done virtually, and many people are more productive at home than in the office. Similarly, working from home doesn’t appear to be correlated with lower wages in itself. For example, the makes $45 an hour, a figure that hasn’t changed that much over the pandemic period.

However, there are some real concerns exposed by the research. Chief among them is the fact that, for women, career development appears to be positively correlated with in-person work. In other words, while working from home doesn’t appear to affect men’s prospects of getting promoted, it does for women.

In-person attendance at the office can boost an employee’s career prospects, if only because they are more visible in the workplace. Given this, it’s easy to see what may begin to happen if women work from home more than men. Not only will individual women be passed over for promotions, but companies will start to see increases in the gender disparity in leadership roles. Even more problematically, some research suggests that this in that high-ranking executives are more likely to work from the office rather than home, thus exacerbating the problem further.

The Cost of WFH

The research also raises some troubling questions about the way in which employees see their responsibilities. Implicit in many women’s responses to the survey was the idea that they need to balance domestic responsibilities with their professional lives. In other words, more women may choose to work from home, not because they actually want to, but because they are already disproportionately burdened with things like childcare responsibilities. This risks the long-standing when it comes to unpaid labor like domestic work.

The problem here is that many companies are (rightly) presenting a choice to workers to either continue working from home or come back to the office. And while this is presented as a choice primarily related to wherever a worker thinks they will be most productive, the choice is made more complicated for many women by gendered expectations. 

There is a well-established link between domestic labor and professional career advancement. It is well known that unpaid household labor has always been a barrier to women advancing at work as the majority of domestic and childcare responsibilities continue to fall on women. This has only worsened in the pandemic when mothers were, for example, more likely to take on the responsibility of educating their children when schools were closed.

Pandemic Family Life: The Struggles Behind Closed Doors

READ MORE

As we emerge from the pandemic, we may be exacerbating these damaging stereotypes. It would be very troubling, for instance, to return to a world in which many families feel that men “belong at the office” and women “belong at home.” Even if the women at home are working, it doesn’t hide the fact that this attitude reminiscent of the 1950s will now result in women working full time as well as shouldering most of the household work.

This effect may be even worse among minority groups. There are already many in business, tech and numerous other fields independent of gender, so these communities could be even more greatly affected by the gender gaps left over from the pandemic. 

It is important, of course, to recognize women’s agency in making the choice to work from home. For many women, the last year has been a revelation because it has given them the flexibility they’ve long been asking for when it comes to balancing professional and domestic responsibilities. For many women, this flexible schedule is a major advantage and is one of the reasons why they may be reluctant to return to the office.

Not All Bad

While we must recognize these hidden costs, it is equally important to admit that the pandemic hasn’t been entirely bad news, even when it comes to gender equality. The normalization of remote work has saved many women hours in commuting time and given them back control of their schedules. These short-term gains should not be ignored.

Similarly, this normalization of remote work may allow women to advance their careers in other ways. We’ve seen a spike in online businesses being founded over the past year, as there are now more types of that can be run entirely online than at any time before. Subsequently, many women have taken advantage of working from home to research the different types of online businesses they can start.

Also, having men home from work — especially for couples who follow more old-fashioned gender roles — may also have had a positive effect on how involved men are in childcare and domestic labor. Many couples have been able to divide these tasks more evenly over the past year, adopting more egalitarian strategies in the division of labor. These strategies, it has been suggested, can improve , and even their professional productivity. 

Still, challenges remain. We should remember that not all households are headed by heterosexual couples — or couples at all — which may complicate an approach that seeks to use existing gender stereotypes to reach a more equal division of labor. Similarly, in a social environment where even the radical right is trying to use feminism as a rallying cry, raising the issue of gendered labor risks polarizing the debate. We must be careful not to get bogged down in such polarization lest it cloud the facts of the matter and prevent progress. 

It is possible that some of these concerns will not come to pass. There is, in fact, a school of thought that argues that the post-pandemic period will be much like the times we thought may never return. Nevertheless, given the hard work and the bravery that it took to reach the still-incomplete state of gender equality at the end of the previous decade, it would be wise to pay attention to issues like these moving forward. 

It may be the case that family and childcare policies will be the way toward post-pandemic recovery. Ultimately, we should be careful to ensure that the pandemic doesn’t reverse the progress we’ve made on gender equality while also recognizing that working from home can be a positive step for many women. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Women Return to the Office? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Paul Polman, who formerly chaired the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), believes the sustainability of liberal capitalism will depend on its ability to demonstrate a sense of social responsibility. Prior to his position at the ICC, Polman was chief executive of Unilever, a major supplier of consumer products designed to “feel good, look good and get more out of life.” Before that, he had earned his stripes at Proctor & Gamble (“Stepping forward as a good corporate citizen”) and Nestlé, the world’s largest food and beverage conglomerate.

The World Needs a People’s Vaccine

READ MORE

Those three organizations reflect the core reality of the consumer society, a two-century long historical phenomenon that has offered the world a cornucopia of convenient merchandise to make life more enjoyable, while organizing a monumental assault on the viability of planet Earth.

Nestlé has been accused of massively from the natural environment and “drying up surface water resources,” to resell it at a profit in plastic bottles. As Nestlé’s chief financial officer, Polman was undoubtedly aware of that activity. His experience at Nestlé may have inspired him to inaugurate the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan as a way of redeeming past sins. His status as an ecologically-minded capitalist is now publicly confirmed. On the occasion of his resignation from Unilever in 2018, the Irish Independent that “the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, marks him out as one of the most far-sighted business leaders of his generation.”

Polman served as chair of the International Chamber of Commerce for two years. Its current chairman, Ajay Banga, militates for at “promoting greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” the core values of the consumer society. He prudently adds that its vocation “includes being a crucial voice in the re-building of a sustainable and inclusive global economy.” That nod in the direction of sustainability is Polman’s legacy.

Consistent with a recent study by the ICC on the impact of COVID-19 on the global economy, Polman is now speaking out on the urgent and compelling need to vaccinate the entire world, not just the populations of developed countries. He is alarmed by what the International Chamber of Commerce condemns as “vaccine nationalism.” The ICC study claims that “the global economy stands to lose as much as $9.2 trillion if governments fail to ensure developing economy access to COVID-19 vaccines, as much as half of which would fall on advanced economies.”

Some may nevertheless find it paradoxical that the ICC failed to support or even mention the proposal of waivers on COVID vaccine patents. Instead, in a press release with the title, “How intellectual property can strengthen our response to climate change and COVID-19,” it the sacrosanct nature of intellectual property (IP) as championed by world-famous divorcee Bill Gates.

A Guardian highlighting British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s politically motivated call for a universal deployment of COVID vaccines cites Polman’s assessment of the risk. “We can’t have global solidarity and trust around tackling climate change if we do not show solidarity around vaccines. Developing countries will not come with more ambitious targets [on emissions] if they do not see developed countries showing some solidarity on vaccines, and climate funding,” Polman said.

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Global solidarity:

An ideal insisted on by prominent public figures, despite being in total contradiction with the aggressively competitive values they promote as the key to prosperity

Contextual Note

Polman wants developed countries to show “some solidarity.” That is probably what they will do, but showing is not doing. The first sentence of the ICC’s mission statement : “Everything we do at ICC aims to promote international trade and investment as vehicles for inclusive growth and prosperity.” In its defense of IP, it proclaimed: “We in the business community pledge to do our part to facilitate this ethical, humanitarian and economic solution to the pandemic as quickly as possible.” Pledging to do one’s part is typically an act of showing that falls short of doing.

Growth is the first and perhaps only serious principle at the core of the consumer society. The ICC has good reasons to prefer growth that is inclusive and that leads to prosperity. That is the key to stability. But when the motive that drives growth is to overtake and even neutralize or cancel your competition, which has become the norm in the competitive culture of capitalism, not only does inclusivity become unattainable and prosperity reserved for the few, but stability itself can only be guaranteed through coercion. The security state becomes the means of maintaining stability. This is a far cry from the “ethical, humanitarian and economic solution” the ICC says it supports. Its refusal to take the leap and propose waivers for vaccine IP makes this paradox clear. The language it uses tells the story.

Polman’s warning about the need to “showing some solidarity” concerning COVID-19 vaccines is correct, so long as the solidarity is real and engaged. Showing solidarity means acting, accomplishing something, not just pronouncing a wish for solidarity. The most realistic and, ultimately, depressing corollary of Polman’s assertion is that because we can now clearly see that the current system has not allowed us to “show solidarity around vaccines,” we may reasonably give up any serious hope of mobilizing the solidarity required to address the much more universal and compelling problem of climate change.

Historical Note

The history of the 20^th century was dominated by a logical chain of events stemming from the triumph of industrial organization in the 19^th century. Because the West’s success in industrializing depended on the brutal asymmetry of colonial domination and the sheer exercise of power, the kind of rivalries it produced among the industrializing nations inevitably led to two world wars initiated in Europe. The cataclysm associated with those two conflicts inaugurated the period of European decolonization. That, in turn, ushered in a new phase of neocolonialism, managed and governed by the emerging dominant power, the United States.

Once the communist block led by the Soviet Union was eliminated, due to its incompatibility with the dominant system, the concept of neoliberal globalization had a clear path to end up dominating every serious person’s thinking and every government’s economic organization, including that of communist China. It also inevitably consolidated and perpetuated the driving force behind industrialization itself, with its celebration of growth. It meant the inevitable global triumph of the consumer society culture whose founding principle, at least in material terms, is the transformation a maximum number of resources into waste. Waste, paradoxically, becomes the most accurate measure of industrial success. Not only does industrial production massively produce waste, it consistently encourages the wasteful behavior of consumers as the means of keeping demand alive and stimulating growth. Plastic has become the ultimate symbol of the culture of waste.

Unilever and the International Chamber of Commerce may make a public display of regretting this reality, but to fulfil their missions, they must support its logic, even while “pledging” to do it in a more reasonable way. But this clearly will not be enough. A published by the Swiss Re Institute and Oxfam indicates the consequences of this trend, all of which Paul Polman will undoubtedly agree should worry us.

The Guardian summarizes its conclusion in these : “T��� economies of rich countries will shrink by twice as much as they did in the Covid-19 crisis if they fail to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions, according to research.” Jerome Haegeli, group chief economist at Swiss Re, makes the point concerning climate change that “staying where we are is not an option — we need more progress by the G7. That means not just obligations on cutting CO2 but helping developing countries too, that’s super-important.”

In other words, all that’s required is to substitute a culture of global solidarity for today’s culture of hyper-competition. Can we really count on the G7 to make that happen?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can the Word “Solidarity” Have Any Meaning in the Consumer Society? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Pandemic Family Life: The Struggles Behind Closed Doors

READ MORE

Vietnam is a COVID success , with one of the lowest rates of infection and death in the world. Vietnam’s excellent community-based public health system prevented the coronavirus from spreading beyond isolated cases and localized outbreaks, without a nationwide lockdown. With a population of 98 million people, Vietnam has had only 8,983 confirmed cases and 53 deaths. However, more than half of Vietnam’s cases and deaths have come in the last two months, and three-quarters of the new cases have been infected with a new “hybrid” variant that combines the two mutations detected separately in the Alpha (UK) and Delta (India) variants.

Vietnam is a canary in the pandemic coal mine. The way this new variant has spread so quickly in a country that has defeated every previous form of the virus suggests that this one is much more infectious.

COVID-19 Variants

This variant must surely also be spreading in other countries, where it will be harder to detect among thousands of daily cases, and will therefore be widespread by the time public health officials and governments respond to it. There may also be other highly infectious new variants spreading undetected among the millions of cases in Latin America and other parts of the world.

A new published in The Lancet medical journal has found that the Alpha, Beta (South Africa) and Delta variants are all more resistant to existing vaccines than the original COVID-19 virus, and the Delta variant is still spreading in countries with aggressive vaccination programs, including the United Kingdom. 

The Delta variant accounts for a two-month high in new cases in Britain and a new of infections in Portugal, just as developed countries ease restrictions before the summer vacation season, almost certainly opening the door to the next wave. The UK, which has a slightly higher vaccination rate than the United States, had planned a further relaxation of restrictions on June 21, but that is now in question.    

China, Vietnam, New Zealand and other countries defeated the pandemic in its early stages by prioritizing public health over business interests. The US and Western Europe instead tried to strike a balance between public health and their neoliberal economic systems, breeding a monster that has now killed millions of people. The World Health Organization (WHO) that 6 to 8 million people have died, about twice as many as have been counted in official figures. 

Vaccinating the World

Now, the WHO is recommending that wealthier countries that have good supplies of doses vaccinating healthy young people and instead prioritize sending vaccines to poorer countries where the virus is running wild. President Joe Biden has announced that the US is releasing 25 million doses from its stockpiles, most of which will be distributed through COVAX, the WHO’s global vaccine-sharing program, with another 55 million to follow by the end of June. But this is a tiny fraction of what is needed. 

Biden has also agreed to waive patent rights on vaccines under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TRIPS rules, formally known as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. But that has so far been held up at the WTO by Canada and right-wing governments in the UK, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Japan and Colombia. People have taken to the in many countries to insist that a TRIPS Council meeting on June 8-9 must agree to waive patent monopolies.

Since all the countries blocking the TRIPS waiver are US allies, this will be a critical test of the Biden administration’s promised international leadership and diplomacy. So far, Biden’s team has taken a back seat to dangerous saber-rattling against China and Russia, foot-dragging on the nuclear deal with Iran, and war-crime-fueling weapons peddling to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Ending international vaccine apartheid is not just a matter of altruism or even justice. It is a question of whether we will end this pandemic before vaccine-resistant, super-spreading and deadlier variants fuel even more toxic new waves. The only way humanity can win this struggle is to act collectively in our common interest.

Public Citizen has what it would take to vaccinate the world and concluded that it would cost only $25 billion — 3% of the annual US budget for weapons and war — to set up manufacturing plants and distribution hubs across the world and vaccinate all of humanity within a year. Forty-two progressives in Congress have signed a addressed to President Biden to urge him to fund such a plan.

If the world can agree to make and distribute a people’s vaccine, it could be the silver lining in this dark cloud. The ability to act globally and collectively in the public interest is precisely what we need to solve so many of the most serious problems facing humanity. For example, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) warns that we are in the midst of a of climate change, mass extinction and pollution. Our neoliberal political and economic system has not just failed to solve these problems. It actively to undermine efforts to do so, granting people, corporations and countries that profit from destroying the natural world the freedom to do so without constraint. 

Neoliberalism

That is the very meaning of laissez-faire — to let the wealthy and powerful do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for the rest of us or even for life on Earth. As economist John Maynard Keynes reputedly said in the 1930s, laissez-faire capitalism is the absurd idea that the worst people, for the worst reasons, will do what is best for us all. Neoliberalism is the reimposition of 19^th-century laissez-faire capitalism, with all its injustices, inequality and oppression, on the people of the 21^st century, prioritizing markets, profits and wealth over the common welfare of humanity and the natural world our lives depend on.     

Berkeley and Princeton political theorist Sheldon Wolin called the US political system, which facilitates this neoliberal economic order, “inverted totalitarianism.” Like classical totalitarianism, it concentrates ever more wealth and power in the hands of a small ruling class, but instead of abolishing parliaments, elections and the superficial trappings of representative government as classical totalitarianism did, it simply coopts them as tools of plutocracy, which has proved to be a more marketable and sustainable strategy.

But now that neoliberalism has wreaked its chaos for a generation, popular movements are rising up across the world to demand systemic change and to build new systems of politics and economics that can actually solve the huge problems that neoliberalism has produced. 

In response to the 2019 uprising in Chile, its rulers were forced to agree to an election for a constitutional , to draft a constitution to replace the one written during the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship, one of the vanguards of neoliberalism. That election has now taken place, and the ruling party of President Sebastian Pinera and other traditional parties won less than a third of the seats. So, the constitution will instead be written by a super-majority of citizens committed to radical reform and social, economic and political justice.

In Iraq, which was also swept by a popular uprising in 2019, a new government seated in 2020 has launched an investigation to recover $150 billion in Iraqi oil revenues and smuggled out of the country by the corrupt officials of previous governments. In 2003, former flew into Iraq on the heels of the US-led invasion “with empty pockets to fill,” as a Baghdad taxi driver told a Western reporter at the time. While American forces and US-trained Iraqi death squads destroyed their country, they hunkered down in the Green Zone in Baghdad and controlled and looted Iraq’s oil revenues for the next 17 years. Now, maybe Iraq can recover the stolen money its people so desperately need and start using its oil wealth to rebuild that country.

In Bolivia, also in 2019, a US-backed overthrew its popular indigenous president, Evo Morales. But the people of Bolivia rose up in a general strike to demand a new election and Morales’ Movement for Socialism (MAS) party was restored to power. Now, Luis Arce, the economy minister under Morales, is Bolivia’s president.

Around the world, we are witnessing what can happen when people rise up and act collectively for the common good. That is how we will solve the serious problems we face, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the climate crisis to the terminal danger of nuclear war. Humanity’s survival into the 22^nd century and all our hopes for a bright future depend on building new political and economic systems that will simply and genuinely “do what is best for all of us.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The World Needs a People’s Vaccine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The COVID-19 Crisis Has Catalyzed Vision 2030

READ MORE

No region is more complex in terms of confusing signals than the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Central Asia. This is the subject of the latest report by the International Monetary Fund , “Regional Economic Outlook: Arising from the Pandemic: Building Forward Better.”

What is clear from a review of the data is that 2020 was an outlier in terms of trend lines earlier in the decade, skewed by the COVID-19 pandemic, erosion of oil prices, diminished domestic economic activity, reduced remittances and other factors that have yet to be brought into an orderly predictive model. Even the IMF had to recalibrate its 2020 report upward for several countries based on rising oil exports, while decreasing marks were given countries slow to vaccinate against COVID-19 and that rely on service-oriented sectors.

Mixed Outlook

The numbers indicate a , ranging from Oman growing at 7.2% and the West Bank at 6.9%, to Lebanon receiving no projection and Sudan at the bottom of the range with a 1.13% real GDP growth rate. Yet, so much can impact those numbers, from Oman’s heavy debt burden to continuing turmoil in intra-Palestinian and Palestinian-Israeli affairs.

The good news is that real GDP is expected to grow by 4% in 2021, up from the projection last October of 3.2%. Much of the lift has come from two factors: a more optimistic trend line for the oil producers and the rate of vaccinations in countries that will promote business recovery.

As CNBC out, Jihad Azour, director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia department, noted that recovery will be “divergent between countries and uneven between different parts of the population.” Key variables include the extent of vaccine rollout, recovery of tourism and government policies to promote recovery and growth.

In oil-producing countries, real GDP is projected to increase from 2.7% in 2021 to 3.8% in 2022, with a 5.8% rise in the region’s sector driven by Libya’s return to global markets. Conversely, non-oil producers saw their growth rate estimates reduced from 2.7% to 2.3%. In fact, Georgia, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, which are highly dependent on tourism, have been downgraded in light of continuing COVID-19 issues such as vaccination rollout and coverage.

As the IMF report summary notes, “T��� outlook will vary significantly across countries, depending on the pandemic’s path, vaccine rollouts, underlying fragilities, exposure to tourism and contact-intensive sectors, and policy space and actions.” From Mauritania to Afghanistan, one can select data that supports or undercuts the projected growth rates. For example, in general, Central Asia countries as a group seem to be poised for stronger results than others. Meanwhile, Arab countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council face greater uncertainty, from resolving debt issues to unforeseen consequences of negotiations with Iran.

So, how will these projects fare given a pending civil war in Afghanistan and the possible deterioration of oil prices and debt financing by countries such as Bahrain and Oman? Highlighting this latter concern, the report goes on to say that public “gross financing needs in most emerging markets in the region are expected to remain elevated in 2021-22, with downside risks in the event of tighter global financial conditions and/or if fiscal consolidation is delayed due to weaker-than-expected recovery.”

An Opportunity

Calling for greater regional and international cooperation to complement “strong domestic policies” focused on the need “to build forward better and accelerate the creation of more inclusive, resilient, sustainable, and green economies,” the IMF is on the countries to see a post-pandemic phase as an opportunity. This would involve implementing policies that promote recovery, sustain public health practices that focus on sustainable solutions, and balance “the need for debt sustainability and financial resilience.”

There is great uncertainty assigning these projections without more conclusive data on the impact of the pandemic, the stress on public finance and credit available to the private sector, and overall economic recovery across borders that relies on factors such as the weather, oil demand, external political shocks and international monetary flows. The IMF report is a very helpful bellwether for setting parameters for ongoing analyses and discussions.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Expect an Uneven Rebound in MENA and Central Asia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Women Become Collateral Damage in COVID-19 Pandemic

READ MORE

COVID-19 has exacerbated many of the injustices that face vulnerable families, women and children in every country, but especially in those nations undergoing political and economic turmoil, from inadequate internet access to housing instability, tacit unschooling and food insecurity. Dr. Hans Henri P. Kluge, the World Health Organization’s regional director for Europe, recently that “the cards have been stacked against them in terms of jobs, housing, community, social support and health care.” In turn, new and different types of inequality, such as the mental health and wellbeing gap or digital and gender inequalities, are exacerbated. Each is a threat to the human dimension of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Facing the Crisis

There is empirical evidence that families, women and children are experiencing mental health stress in the face of the unfolding crisis. The cross-sectional COVID-19 Family Life Study initiated at the College of Public Policy, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, carried out online surveys among 123,845 parents of children under 18 spanning every continent between March and October 2020. The results show the worrying incidence of parents’ and children’s mental health, wellbeing, behavioral and emotional difficulties. 

During the pandemic, anxiety was the most pervasive symptom among parents, followed by depression, then stress. The prevalence differed significantly according to gender, education and employment status. Symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress were found in mothers, parents with primary and intermediate educational levels, as well as retired and unemployed parents.

Parents reported elevated levels of anxiety in their children across high-income, upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries, as by the World Bank. In countries facing political instability or conflict, such as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Venezuela, Iraq and Syria, however, the pandemic has had a severe impact on children’s levels of anxiety. Palestine had the highest percentage of children experiencing elevated and severe levels of anxiety compared to countries with high incomes such as Greece, Norway, Poland, Italy and Australia, which had the lowest.

In Asia, children in early adolescence living in single-parent households experienced higher levels of anxiety. In the Gulf region, over 30% of parents reported their children experiencing an elevated level of anxiety and over 20% reported severe difficulties in their child’s emotional, behavioral and attentional abilities. The study also shows that teens are struggling under the oppressive weight of anxiety and depression, many of whom live in low and middle-income countries.

Children’s activity, eating and sleep routines have been disrupted globally, which may have detrimental effects on their health and overall development. More than half of parents surveyed in the UAE, Lebanon, Indonesia, the United States, the Netherlands, China, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, South Africa, Sudan and Peru reported an increase in their children’s sleep problems. Over 50% of parents in Qatar, Bahrain, Italy, the US, Oman, Kuwait, Germany, China, Chile, Venezuela, Malaysia, Nigeria, India and Iraq reported an increase in their children’s reading difficulties. In Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sweden, Oman, the UAE, Singapore, France, the US, Norway, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Tunisia, Kenya, Algeria, Angola, Ecuador and Chile, more than half reported an increase in their screen time.

The results reflect humanitarian crises that predate the pandemic. Many already vulnerable refugees have been plunged into even greater precariousness, for example. The data shows an increasing inequality between countries, with children in high-income countries experiencing fewer mental health problems than those in the global south. While the challenges of the pandemic are overwhelming for all of us, the more pronounced psychological symptoms among children and teenagers may also be a reflection of the inequities inside their homes and in some cases the utter lack of protection offered by national systems. It is also in these countries where mental health counseling is too often unavailable for those who need it most.

The disruptions to children’s physical activities, sleeping and eating routines, reading and screen time will have a long-lasting effect on their physical and mental health. These must be addressed if we are to guard children’s wellbeing and prevent the onset of more severe behavioral and emotional problems.

Facing the Future

Parents are facing serious challenges and need support if they are to continue fulfilling their foundational role in providing secure, stable and healthy home environments for their children. The most vulnerable families, those who are plagued by poverty, those mired down by gender inequality, and those living in conflict zones, must receive the support they need and deserve.

These more vulnerable families do not have the personal resources to manage the multi-layered pandemic crisis. Their vulnerabilities are too easily exploited, whether within the labor or the housing market, with the most vulnerable often willing to accept abusive conditions to stave off complete destitution. Negative coping strategies may include behavioral disengagement, self-blame, denial and substance abuse, leading to further social exclusion.

On the International Day of Families, we must be mindful that the global SDGs will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill unless strategies to achieve them focus on the family. Our policy choices today will determine how quickly countries can overcome the pandemic’s impact. Otherwise, we risk aggravating the already deep inequalities both within and between countries.

Technology and digital tools can help in many respects, offering mental health support or giving parents access to essential public health information and tips on how to recognize and cope with the symptoms of anxiety in their children and teens. But for that to work, the widening digital gap must be addressed. The challenges ahead include the need to develop global, regional and national intervention programs to offset the effects of the pandemic. Evidence-based policy interventions can do much to ensure a fair global order that recognizes the inherent dignity of all persons and all families.

Far beyond the span of current COVID-19 stimulus packages, there is an urgent need for investment and support by governments to protect families, as evidenced by the study. Over 90% of parents surveyed reported an urgent need for financial support for families and the elderly, work-family balance arrangements, mental health programs for parents, children and adolescents, and parenting and relationship education programs. The pandemic has illuminated positive opportunities for shaping family and childcare policies, and family policies must be the foundation of post-pandemic recovery.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Pandemic Family Life: The Struggles Behind Closed Doors appeared first on 51�Թ�.

China was the early face of COVID-19, but it hasn’t faced many infections since spring 2020. Europe, like the United States, has experienced successive outbreaks. Brazil continues to be hit hard, while Turkey is seeing a reduction of cases from a mid-April surge. Thailand and Cambodia are only now dealing with their first major upticks in the disease.

Where India Went Wrong

READ MORE

But the real surprise has been India. Early on in the pandemic, journalists and scientists were trying to  why the coronavirus had made so little mark on the subcontinent and left so few deaths in its wake. Now, after a collective sigh of relief following a modest surge in late summer and fall last year, India is now overwhelmed by over 400,000 cases and more than 4,000 a day, which are both likely to be undercounts.

There are several reasons for India’s current catastrophe. A more infectious variant  to appear in the population, which the World Health Organization this week  a global health risk. The Indian government was not only unprepared for the crisis, but it was dangerously cavalier in its approach to the disease. After last year’s surge, it grew lax on testing and contact tracing. Nor did it put resources into the country’s inadequate medical system or in stockpiling key supplies like oxygen.

Then there are the errors of commission. The government did nothing, for instance, to  Kumbh Mela, a Hindu religious event last month that drew millions of pilgrims to a holy location on the Ganges, from turning into the largest super-spreader event on the planet. Prime Minister Narendra Modi even  to hold mass political rallies as the COVID numbers began to rise.

When it comes to vaccines, the government has been  to order doses, distribute them to the population and secure the raw materials to scale up manufacturing. Although India is the world’s largest producer of COVID vaccines, less than 3% of Indians are fully inoculated against the disease.

Well, that’s India, you might be saying to yourself. They have a Trump-like fanatic for a leader. Their medical system has long been inadequate. It’s an obvious place for COVID to have a final encore.

In the United States, meanwhile, the number of cases has fallen dramatically since January. Hospitals no longer face overcrowding. More than a third of the population is fully vaccinated. The Biden administration is expecting that the country will return to some semblance of normality this July. But wasn’t it a similar complacency that proved India’s undoing? So, is India the ghost of America’s past or a taste of things to come.

Our Herd Problem

In early 2020, the scientific community went into hyperdrive to develop not one but several vaccines against COVID-19. In the US, the government and the medical community worked overtime to set up the infrastructure to get doses into arms around the country. Clinics and volunteers have jumped into action at a community level to make sure, as of this week, that 58% of adults have gotten at least one shot and  of those older than 65 are fully vaccinated.

But all this effort is now hitting up against resistance. Or hesitancy. Or barriers to access. States are cutting back on their vaccine orders from the federal authorities. Daily vaccination rates have dropped  from last week. Employers are basically bribing people to get their shots. Millions of  aren’t even bothering to show up for their second doses.

Barriers to access is perhaps the easiest problem to address. According to a , 72% of African-Americans and Latinos want to get vaccinated, but 63% reported that they didn’t have enough information about where to get a shot.

While lack of information may well be the reason why some Americans have yet to sign up for their vaccinations, a hard-core resistance has developed to vaccines in this country — and COVID vaccines in particular. According to polling in April, around 45% of Republicans  that they’ll never get the vaccine. In all, as much as 37% of Americans are now saying that they’re going to opt-out. That means that tens of millions of doses are now chasing the remaining 5% of Americans who want to be vaccinated and haven’t yet gotten their first shot.

This resistance has nothing to do with a lack of information about how to sign up for a shot. It’s all about : that the vaccine is unnecessary, that it’s dangerous, that it comes with a microchip that will track you forever.

Recently, Republican pollster Frank Luntz set up a  of vaccination-hesitant, Donald Trump voters to see what it would take to convince them to get shots. It was not an easy crowd. The husband of one of the participants had gotten seriously ill from COVID — and she stilldidn’t want to get vaccinated. In over two hours of discussion, Luntz brought in such vaccine-boosters as a former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Senator Bill Cassidy, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — and still, the participants barely budged.

Only after several emotional stories from former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and a final round of facts from the CDC official did they start to change their minds. “I would say I was probably 80% against when this started today,” one man said. “Now ��’m probably 50-50-ish.”

Luntz considered that a success. But in this age of Twitter, it’s not a workable model to expect skeptics to sit still for more than two hours while Republican Party grandees and noted doctors barrage one small group after another with stories and facts.

A more representative reaction to such attempts by Republican Party influencers is what happened when Ivanka Trump posted selfies of her own vaccination. Twitter responses : “‘Love your family but this is a huge NO for me & my family. Will be praying you do not get any of the horrible [side-effects].’ Others replied, ‘Please stop promoting this nonsense,’ ‘HARD PASS,’ and ‘Sorry, don’t trust it.’”

Even more concerning, some anti-vaxxers are already planning to use fake vaccination  to get into public events. Hundreds of sellers have  on eBay, Facebook and Twitter to hawk such cards. In this way, “live free or die” is quickly becoming “live free and kill.”

In a nutshell, the US won’t achieve herd immunity because a significant portion of the herd is suffering from mad cow disease. Whatever the reasons for this obstinacy — anti-government, anti-science, anti-liberal — it will ensure that large pockets of this country will continue to play host to a very infectious disease.

This resistance potentially puts the US in the same category as the Seychelles. An island nation in the Indian Ocean, the Seychelles has the highest rate of vaccination in the world. More than 60% of the population is fully vaccinated. But that still hasn’t been enough to ward off COVID. The Seychelles is now experiencing its largest outbreak, which, on a per capita basis, is  than what has overtaken India.

The same thing might happen again in America, for instance in states with very low vaccination rates, like Mississippi and Idaho. When it comes to COVID-19, the US is only as strong as its weakest links.

Perennial Pandemic

When I lived in New York City, I used to wonder why my apartment was so overheated in the winter. It  that the heating systems in old buildings had been designed (or redesigned) to accommodate open windows in winter. During the flu pandemic in 1918-19, open windows and greater circulation of air were supposed to guard against infection.

Modern societies were once structured to handle periodic outbreaks of infectious diseases, from the steam heating in buildings to the TB sanatoriums that dotted the landscape. Americans braced for outbreaks with greater frequency than the cyclical reappearance of the cicadas. Three major waves of cholera  the United States between 1832 and 1866. Typhoid killed 25,000 people in New York in 1906-07. The flu in 1918, diphtheria in the 1920s, polio in the first half of the 20^th century: Americans became accustomed to infectious diseases as a way of life.

COVID-19 isn’t going to disappear completely. It will return, again and again, just like variants of the flu or that other coronavirus, the common cold. If we’re lucky, it will come back in a less virulent form or the antibodies in our systems — those of us who received vaccinations — will render it so. If we’re not lucky, COVID-19 will generate ever more infectious strains that overwhelm us on a periodic basis.

In the best-case scenario, what’s happening in India today is COVID-19’s last gasp. With the worst-case scenario, India is our future. So, don’t delete your Zoom app or give up your home office. Don’t throw away those masks. When it comes to infectious disease, we are all dependent on the herd.

That’s great if you’re living in South Korea or New Zealand where compliance is second nature. But in America, the home of the free, the brave and the stupid, the herd may prove to be our collective undoing.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why the US Will Not Achieve Herd Immunity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The good news coming from the White House predictably triggered bad news on Wall Street. CNBC that within hours, share prices of major vaccine producing pharmaceutical companies “including Moderna, BioNTech and Pfizer, dropped sharply.” The alarm may have been exaggerated. “Johnson & Johnson shed a modest 0.4%,” and closed higher at the end of the week. Pfizer and the others had also gained ground by Friday.

It’s Time to Invest in Curiosity

READ MORE

The brief Wall Street plummet was enough to provoke the ire of Stephen J. Ubi, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, ready to demonstrate the bad faith everyone might expect from a powerful industrial lobbyist. “In the midst of a deadly pandemic,” he explained indignantly, “the Biden Administration has taken an unprecedented step that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and compromise safety. This decision will sow confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Public and private partners:

A euphemism invented to hide the practice of getting taxpayers (the public) to pay for research that will guarantee future profits for commercial firms (private partners) by gifting them a monopoly permitting exorbitant margins on sales to the public, whose tax dollars funded the research

Contextual Note

The pharmaceutical industry will tend to judge any political decision made in the name of human health and the prosperity of all as an act of “sowing confusion.” In our ultra-rationalist economy, profit has become the sole measure of value. Compromising profit is evil, and, as Milton Friedman endlessly repeated, “T���re’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Calling into question the pricing strategies of private companies in the supposed free market is considered a dangerous heresy.

When a government puts up money and resources to stimulate research, guarantees massive purchase orders and transfers the intellectual property to private companies, the companies that benefit don’t consider it “a free lunch.” There’s a reason for this: A lunch at an expensive restaurant in New York may set you back $100 or more. A Coney Island hot dog costs less than $5. But the kind of transfer of wealth from the public to the private sector is routinely measured in billions, if not tens of billions.

The current system of research funding and pharmaceutical production has admittedly produced a certain form of consumer abundance. But the driver of the system even in ordinary times is the management of scarcity and human misery. There seems to be an iron-clad rule that many take to be a law of nature: The misery of the many serves the prosperity of the few. The enduring good fortune of the wealthy enterprises ensures their capacity to partially respond to the needs of the many — but only partially, thanks to the sacrosanct scarcity principle.

Ubi begins his complaint by reminding us that we are “In the midst of a deadly pandemic.” He doesn’t bother to mention that the pandemic might have been controlled months ago if, from the start, we had followed the advice of those who preached in favor of coordinated research and “patent pools.” As Alexander Zaitchik explained in his New Republic on the crucial role Bill Gates played in defending patents, there was a brief moment when the World Health Organization and health professionals were ready to coordinate global research by suspending considerations of private interest and monopolistic profit in response to an impending global threat. That, alas, was seen as stealing Big Pharma’s lunch and violating the consecrated principle of public-private partnerships.

When the pandemic began to spin out of anyone’s control, US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron proudly declared war against the virus. In a veritable world war against a truly evil enemy, with the well-being of every nation’s citizens at stake, reasonable people might expect private interests to give way to the public good. Not in today’s economy. The public sector has accepted its structural dependence on the private sector’s greed to accomplish even its most modest goals. Instead of pooling their efforts, the world’s nations acted as if every other nation was a rival, if not an enemy. Call it the triumph of the spirit of competition.

Historical Note

Ubi complains that the Biden administration took “an unprecedented step.” That is simply untrue. The (DPA), passed in 1950 during the Korean War, authorized “the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.” to The New York Times, the DPA “has been invoked hundreds of thousands of times” in recent years to ensure the procurement needs of the military. Is global health a less deserving cause than equipping an aircraft carrier?

Waiving the patents, according to Ubi “will undermine our global response to the pandemic and compromise safety.” Some might see this as a threat. That actually makes sense, since threats are an item in every effective manager’s toolbox. But it becomes the equivalent of blackmail. In all likelihood, the Big Pharma behemoths would refuse to cooperate with the transfer of technology and know-how at a time when all processes need to be accelerated to achieve a lasting effect. They are the ones who possess the clout required to “undermine our global response” and “compromise safety.”

Most astonishing is Ubi’s claim that the “decision will sow confusion between public and private partners.” Although President Biden’s initiative is only a modest step forward, the waiver would be a welcome occasion to begin to clarify what a presumed “partnership” means. For the public, it could signal the breakthrough some believe they see in Biden’s stance. For the first time in at least two decades, the idea of putting a valuation on the public contribution and translating it into intellectual property rights becomes conceivable.

In the recent past, public investment in all kinds of innovation has been quietly transferred at a fixed price to private interests. In most cases, the price takes little account of actual cost and even less of commercial value. This is as true of Silicon Valley as it is of Big Pharma. The richest billionaires have benefitted from more than a few free lunches.

Ubi fears that the waiver will “further weaken already strained supply chains.” A year ago, the question of supply chains emerged as a major issue as the wealthy nations discovered they no longer had easy access to the masks, PPE and medical supplies needed to respond to the pandemic. In a competitive globalized world, nearly every nation suddenly found itself at a disadvantage. Ubi is right to signal “strained supply chains.” But the whole point of the waiver is to reduce supply chain bottlenecks at a moment of crisis.

Ubi’s final point concerns his fear of “counterfeit vaccines.” But liberating intellectual property reduces the attraction of counterfeits, an effect associated with the protected monopoly of exclusive brands. Illicit imitations of every type of commodity will continue to be an issue for local or national law enforcement. The medical profession is far more capable than retail stores to combat counterfeiting.

The CNBC article concludes with warnings about “China’s ability to piggyback on U.S. innovation to further its vaccine diplomacy aims.” It mentions Russia as well. The idea of cooperation appears nowhere in its reasoning. That is what’s expected from a media whose sole focus is on what affects the stock market. It cites The Washington Post editorial board’s of Bill Gates’s self-interested reasoning. With such well-funded resistance in the financial and political world, the likelihood of a serious change of outlook seems limited. DC lobbyists, generously funded politicians and conformist media clearly have more power than the American people and far more than the seven billion people that populate nations not called the United States.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Big Pharma’s Big Free Lunch appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The New York Times legitimately called Biden’s with a principle promoted by more than 100 countries “a breakthrough,” after noting that until Wednesday the US had been “a major holdout at the World Trade Organization over a proposal to suspend intellectual property protections in an effort to ramp up vaccine production.” Biden’s representative to the WTO, Katherine Tai, nevertheless emphasized that this dramatic reversal should be thought of as exceptional: “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures. The administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for Covid-19 vaccines.”

For a Few Billion Dollars More

READ MORE

Digging a little deeper into the perspective for change, Michael Safi at The Guardian the Biden administration “two cheers” rather than the three The Times appears to believe it deserves. This follows from Tai’s realistic assessment of how things are likely to play out: “Those negotiations will take time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Consensus-based:

Designed to protect vested interests, even in the face of a majority and the logic of history and health itself

Contextual Note

Times reporters Thomas Kaplan and Sheryl Gay Stolberg remain faithful to the patented meliorist approach the paper applies to nearly all policies conducted by a Democratic president. They emphasize the constructive process now underway at the WTO in a piece that echoes The Beatles song, “Getting Better All the Time.” The Biden administration seems to be telling the world: ��’m changing my scene and doing the best that I can.

In contrast, the coverage by The Washington Post (owned by Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos) spends most of its ink suggesting the proposed waiver probably is fundamentally a flawed idea, leaving the impression that not much if anything will come of it. According to its pessimistic take, “Tai cautioned that the discussions to proceed with negotiations over the waiver’s text would ‘take time.’ Current and former officials said that a final agreement could differ significantly from the proposed waiver, which India and South Africa first introduced in October, and that deliberations could fall apart entirely.”

CNN more prudently the fact that the US proposal “is preliminary and will not guarantee the global patent rules are lifted right away. But the Biden administration’s signal of support amounts to a major step that aid groups and Democrats had been pressing for.” It nevertheless appears to offer Biden his third cheer when it explains that the president “ultimately decided to support the waiver in line with his campaign pledge.” It quotes US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s claim that Biden “put people over patents.” 

But CNN points clearly to the true obstacle: “Members of the WTO must unanimously decide whether to loosen the restrictions. And while the US had been a hold out, other countries — including the European Union and Switzerland — have also resisted the step.” In other words, Biden may have killed two birds with one stone. By letting Europeans do the dirty work, he could save his standing with Big Pharma — surely the main reason for his hesitation — while appearing to stay true to the progressive principle of putting people over patents. Interestingly, France’s President Emmanuel Macron may be .

Historical Note

The Guardian reminds its readers that the proposal is limited to “waiving patents on Covid vaccines — but not on treatments or other technology used to fight the disease.” Whereas the US media presented the question as one of moral duty versus economic interest, both The Guardian and point to the practical question implied by the waiver: “If approved, the waiver would theoretically allow drugmakers around the world to produce coronavirus jabs without the risk of being sued for breaking IP rules.” For the developing world, feeling free from an imminent attack by corporate lawyers is indeed a kind of liberation.

In other words, the proposed waiver would leave the world a long way from the optimistic scenario originally evoked by health experts and scientists in early 2020 that Alexander Zaitchik in his exposé of Bill Gates’ influence on the WTO: “Battle-scarred veterans of the medicines-access and open-science movements hoped the immensity of the pandemic would override a global drug system based on proprietary science and market monopolies.” The idea at the time was to mobilize everyone and maximize resources. This implied .

The health professionals facing the outbreak of COVID-19 understood both the scope of its threat and the dangers of an insufficiently coordinated organization to counter it. They also knew what the consequences of patent protection might turn out to be. The adoption of the agreement Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1995 and TRIPS-plus in 1999 marked a landmark moment in the trend economists and politicians have celebrated with the term “globalization.” The specific rules applying to pharmaceuticals have been in place since 2005. In 2015, the website Infojustice the fact that the TRIPS agreement had established a regime in which “patents grant the patent holder a monopoly on the market that allows the blocking of price-lowering generic competition and the raising of prices which restricts affordable access to medicines.”

The history of the past two decades has demonstrated to the global south the risk existing patent laws represent for their health and welfare. In 2015, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “attention to the potential detrimental impact these treaties and agreements … may have on the enjoyment of human rights as enshrined in legally binding instruments, whether civil, cultural, economic, political or social. Our concerns relate to the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement.”&�Բ�����;

COVID-19 changed everyone’s perception. So long as the world was not faced by a politically toxic pandemic, the developed world was free to use its superior wealth and force to impose its rules on the rest of humanity. Any serious campaign to understand the fundamental asymmetry that was continually and silently aggravating the gap between the rich and poor nations was easily stifled. Thomas Piketty could write erudite books about the gap and what was driving it. But most people in the West had bought into the belief system promoted by New York Times columnist and best-selling author Thomas Friedman, conveying the message that thanks to globalization and American technology, the world was now flat.

In an ideal scenario, the Biden administration will now begin to put pressure on Europe and Switzerland to emulate America’s courage in backing the proposed waiver. It will also pressure US vaccine providers to share their technology and know-how with the rest of humanity by convincing them to show not just their leadership but also their commitment to human health above profit. With or without patent protection, there is no danger of their becoming unprofitable, not with the power they have and an ever-expanding marketplace for health. But what we are witnessing, as they resist even temporary waivers, is the rentier’s obsession with automatically induced maximum profit making the question of health benefits a secondary consideration.

In the months to come, the world will be attentively observing the political and economic games now being played out. At some point, COVID-19 will begin to fade away. The world will then face the fear of the next contagion and perhaps begin seriously to struggle with a strategy to counter the effects of climate change. Awareness of the stakes is already much higher than in the past. It is time for the political class to begin assessing the risk that represents for their own future.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post After Long Wavering, a Waiver appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Before the start of the second wave of COVID-19 infections in March, the pandemic seemed to be under control in India. In September 2020, the country an average of 95,000 daily cases of COVID-19 during the peak of the first wave. By January 2021, that figure had dropped to under 20,000.

At the same time, the United States went from around 35,000 confirmed cases per day in September to a peak of over in January. At the start of the year, the United Kingdom was in the midst of a deadly second wave of infections, which reached over cases a day. At that time, Britain was battling a more contagious of COVID-19 known as the “Kent variant,” which is named after the region where it was first discovered in England. Countries in Europe and around the world raced to halt flights to and from the UK in a bid to control the spread of the new strain, which they feared would soon go beyond the British isles.

India’s Health-Care System Is in Shambles

READ MORE

To put these figures in perspective, the UK population is 66.6 million, the US is 328 million and India is around 1.36 billion. That means at the start of 2021, the infection ratio per 100,000 people in India was far lower than in the UK and the US.

Lax Safety Measures

As a result, Indians thought the country was beyond the worst of the pandemic. In March, Harsh Vardhan, the Indian health minister, said the country had entered the “” of the health crisis. This led to a false sense of hope, which made the public and the central and state governments complacent. Restrictions that were brought in to curb the spread of the coronavirus were quickly eased. Life had almost returned to normal in January with the opening up of , restaurants, hotels, tourist locations and public transport.

At the same time, were announced in five states, including West Bengal, which the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had set its sights on winning. All political parties and their supporters held rallies with tens of thousands of people in attendance. The Hindu festival of attracted millions of people who took a dip in the Ganges, a river considered sacred in Hinduism. Nearly 60,000 were also allowed to enter stadiums to watch cricket matches. All of these events took place with lax safety measures in place, with no social distancing or wearing of masks.

In hindsight, India did not anticipate a second wave of COVID-19. It lifted the lid on public restrictions at a time when countries such as the UK were battling a winter wave of infections. As mainland Europe realized, it was inevitable that the more contagious strain of COVID-19 discovered in the UK would spread. India failed to understand this despite repeated .

Now, India is battling its own second wave. The country has repeatedly broken the record for the daily number of confirmed cases of COVID-19. On May 2, India recorded more than new daily infections. The actual number of cases is believed to be far higher due to a of testing kits and people getting tested. Many Indians are not getting checked because they have no symptoms but are contagious or they are worried about testing positive for the virus. States like , and have been accused of manipulating and the number of positive cases and deaths from COVID-19 to avoid criticism over inefficient governance. Worryingly, epidemiologists that India has not yet hit the peak of the second wave and that the worst is yet to come.

No Improvement to Health Care

It has been argued by many that the pandemic will not come to an end until it is under control everywhere. This is “viruses naturally mutate over time.” There are currently thousands of mutations of the coronavirus around the world, but only a few of them are variants of concern for scientists. As more people contract the virus and spread it to others, it is inevitable that different strains will emerge. This is why despite the successful vaccination rollout in countries like Israel, the UK and the US, authorities have been cautious as they reopen economies and reduce restrictions for the public. The fear is that some variants, such as the one in South Africa, will evade the existing vaccines and render them less effective.

India has a worrying COVID-19 variant of its own that is officially called B.1.617. This new strain — which is also known as the “double mutant” due to two mutations coming in the same variant — accounts for 61% of infections in Maharashtra, a major epicenter in India. It is unclear whether the Indian variant is driving the second wave, but it is believed to be more transmissible than previous strains of the virus. This is in addition to fear over the UK strain, which has to more than 50 countries.

Complacency by the central and state governments has made the health care system as Indians desperately seek medical assistance. When the pandemic first hit India in March 2020, authorities failed to strengthen the infrastructure at hospitals. As of 2018, the Indian government spent only on health care. Other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa spent 9.51% and 8.25%, respectively. In India, there is doctor per 1,445 people, which is far lower than the figure the World Health Organization recommends. At public hospitals, there were only 0.7 beds available per 1,000 people.

In July 2020, state governments opted to build temporary centers for COVID-19 patients instead of buying additional beds for existing hospitals and allocating more resources. These centers were barely used. Due to their high maintenance costs, they were dismantled a couple of months before the second wave hit. Now, as hospitals face a short supply of beds and a high demand for them, some state governments are considering whether to rebuild the centers.

In March 2020, Modi 150 billion rupees ($2.03 billion) to strengthen the infrastructure of health care in India. The government purchased personal protective equipment (PPE) and an additional 60,000 ventilators. Yet as of last fall, just under of the ventilators had been installed in hospitals across the country. Both public and private hospitals are currently short of beds, ventilators and oxygen in many major cities.

As COVID-19 infections sweep the country, social media networks have been flooded with posts calling for help. Friends and families of those suffering from the virus have desperately sought to find available beds in hospitals, oxygen supplies or medication to combat COVID-19. Disturbing reports of people dying after being unable to access treatment have been heard all over the country. Ambulances and other vehicles with COVID-19 victims inside them have lined up hospitals that no longer have space available. Many hospitals have reported that patients they were treating died as the supply ran out. Outside crematoriums, the number of dead bodies is mounting.

The Government’s “Vaccine Diplomacy”

With the situation worsening, the BJP-led government has been by Indian courts for focusing on state election campaigns instead of taking preemptive action to combat the second wave. Aside from easing restrictions too quickly and not reinforcing the health care system in time, many states face of COVID-19 vaccines. In January, Prime Minister Narendra Modi to have rolled out the “world’s largest vaccination drive,” aiming to get jabs in the arms of 300 million people by July. At the time of writing, only of the Indian population — 29 million — has been fully vaccinated with two doses. This is compared to in the UK and in the US, both of which focused on vaccinating their most vulnerable citizens first to drive down new infections and deaths.

India had other things in mind. It sought to distribute doses worldwide as part of its vaccine diplomacy. With the world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines, India has so far 66 million doses to 95 countries. Yet, earlier this year, the Modi government implemented an to donate free batches in an attempt to boost the country’s soft power when the pandemic was seemingly under control. Many observers questioned whether the move was necessary instead of focusing on vaccinating Indians themselves. Toward the end of March, as infections increased and vaccines decreased, the Modi government realized that its decision to export millions of doses was premature. It decided to halt the export of doses and instead vaccinate Indians over the age of 45. Yet the damage had already been done due to poor planning by the BJP-led government.

Meanwhile, state administrations in Maharashtra, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh that are not ruled by the BJP have claimed they are running short of vaccines. Critics have accused Modi of playing politics with as states with BJP governments, such as Gujarat, were given almost the same number of vaccine doses as Maharashtra, which has a population double that of Gujarat. Vardhan denied that regions were short of supplies and instead blamed state governments for the poor rollout of vaccines.

In order to counter criticism over its inefficient planning, the central government announced on April 19 that all citizens above 18 would be able to get from May 1; it had previously focused on health and frontline workers and those over 45. By opening the door for all adults, an additional 600 million citizens are now eligible. Yet with vaccines in short supply, some states have the rollout. The website through which citizens can book a jab minutes after it went live for the new age group.

The government has approved al funds for vaccine manufacturers to ramp up production. However, the increased production is unlikely to be available for a few months as vaccines go through a lengthy process of packaging and safety checks. To make up for this shortage, the government has fast-tracked the process for foreign-produced vaccines. These include Johnson and Johnson from Belgium and Sputnik V from Russia, which cost more than domestically-produced ones.

Public Image

In an attempt to maintain his public image, Modi the nation on April 20. Indians needed assurances and demanded answers, but the prime minister offered none. He neither informed the public about plans to tackle the crisis, nor did he give any reasons about why the country is facing a horrific second wave. This is despite him previously boasting that India’s handling of the pandemic had been exemplary and should a model for the world. It seems the central government is content with placing the blame on state administrations and the public instead of admitting that it made mistakes.

Earlier this week, the BJP to win in the state of West Bengal despite heavy election campaigning. It seems that Indians are beginning to realize that Modi’s preoccupation with his public image, and his need to win votes, is costing the country dearly. In fact, the obsession with elections on the part of Indian politicians has contributed to the second wave of COVID-19 infections. India can only hope that Modi and other politicians shift their focus from politics to health care before it is too late.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Where India Went Wrong appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The crisis was still “unfolding” more than a year after the outbreak precisely due to Gates’ effective dictatorship over the global effort to combat the virus. Insisting on protecting Big Pharma’s intellectual property, Gates single-handedly blocked the one solution scientists and health experts were eager to run with: the sharing of industrial procedures to avoid hoarding and scarcity while addressing the needs of humankind.

Is Bill Gates a Danger to Humanity?

Now, even after massive coverage of the scandal provoked by Gates’ adamant opposition to intellectual property waivers that effectively limits the capacity to manufacture vaccines on the scale required for a pandemic, Neate once again expresses his effusive admiration, citing Gates’ willingness to spare no expense in the name of the cause: “It’ll be a few billion dollars we’ll waste on manufacturing for the constructs that don’t get picked because something else is better. But a few billion in this, the situation we’re in, where there’s trillions of dollars … being lost economically, it is worth it.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

A few billion (dollars):

Chump change for the hyperwealthy

Contextual Note

Gates’ statement deserves some careful unpacking. It reveals more than he may have intended about his worldview. It may even hold a clue to Melinda Gates’ this week, also covered by Neate. Gates mentions “constructs,” apparently referring to research projects declared stillborn when their results prove to be inferior to other projects bet on by the same philanthropist. He calls it “waste,” but he should know that the whole purpose of research is to distinguish what doesn’t work from what works well.

There is nothing wasteful about that effort. Wasted “constructs” are an essential consequence of the structure and logic of research. But focused on the naive idea of building the proverbial “better mousetrap,” Gates apparently deems anything wasteful that fails to pass the intellectual property test, pointing to guaranteed future profits.

After regretting the waste, Gates goes on to explain why such waste can be tolerated. It’s not because it is a stage in advancing the cause of human health. No, as James Carville once told candidate Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Gates talks about “the situation we’re in” and makes it clear that the threat he worries about isn’t to millions of people in the global south, but to the loss of trillions of dollars of economic activity. Gates is a man who knows his priorities. Those trillions produce the fortunes of multibillionaires whose philanthropy can save the human race. Unlike McKenzie Scott, Gates may not have noticed that the pandemic has comforted and increased the wealth of the current generation of multibillionaires, such as himself. The longer it lasts, the more durable will be the results.

Gates esteems that losing “a few billion” when your estimated fortune is around $124 billion is “worth it,” if what you’re doing is designed to save not so much people as the capitalist economy. He has repeatedly insisted not only that the protection of intellectual property is the key to the economy, but that a prosperous capitalist economy dominated by global powerhouses like Microsoft and Big Pharma is the key to human health. He sincerely believes this, even if along the way some “waste” occurs as hundreds of thousands die in India and Brazil and other places handicapped by a deficit of intellectual property.

Historical Note

Neate uses the occasion of the philanthropic couple’s impending divorce to heap more praise on Bill’s exemplary generosity: “Bill is the world’s fourth-richest person with his estimated $124bn (£90bn) fortune, but he would have been even more vastly wealthy if he had not committed to giving away at least half of his fortune before he dies.” That is technically true in terms of Gates’ personal holdings, but a foundation represents personal wealth in a different form.

Moreover, if wealth is power — as most people would admit — foundations offer direct political power in ways that personal wealth can never do. Those who shovel massive amounts of their personal wealth into foundations bearing their name and which they control are investing in their own political power far more than they are contributing to that collective idea that Adam Smith, the father of capitalist theory, once referred to as “the wealth of nations.”

Gates was certainly the luckiest techno-creator in the history of information technology’s triumph over the past 40 years. If IBM hadn’t gifted him the development and the intellectual property of MS-DOS — which IBM itself marketed across the globe in its PCs — he might have gone done in history as just another Harvard dropout addicted to experimenting with computer code. Anyone who spent the decade of the 1980s using MS-DOS can understand why Gates will never be remembered as among the most brilliant of a tribe that included Steve Jobs but also people like Tim Berners-Lee and Linus Torvalds.

The latter two never sought to become billionaires or business icons. Gates’ genius was focused on understanding how to leverage dropout. His story is similar in some ways to that of his friend, Warren Buffett, who honestly attributes his own success to his understanding of the mystery of . These hyperwealthy individuals share traits that some would call autistic.

In the course of his panegyric, Neate does have the decency to quote Anand Giridharadas, whom he identifies as “one critic of billionaire benefactors.” Giridharadas predicts that the Gates divorce will have ramifications in “the worlds of business, education, public health, civil society, philanthropy, and beyond.” He explains that it “is because our society has made the colossal error of allowing wealth to purchase the chance to make quasi-governmental decisions as a private citizen.”

We may wonder if the divorce is in any way related to the latest controversy about Gates’ role in the vaccine fiasco. Has Melinda read Zaitchik’s article or dared to listen to Giridharadas’s reasoning? Will we ever know? There is most likely a in the offing, possibly resembling McKenzie Scott’s $38-billion divorce arrangement with Jeff Bezos in 2019. 

Ms. Scott’s net worth today is estimated at $68 billion. Her commitment to philanthropy appears more sincere than her former husband’s or Gates’, especially as it is significantly less self-aggrandizing and reflects a more refined sense of . For Scott, “there’s no question in my mind that anyone’s personal wealth is the product of a collective effort, and of social structures which present opportunities to some people, and obstacles to countless others.” She even dared to offer this that most billionaires avoid evoking out of fear of brandished pitchforks: “Economic losses and health outcomes alike have been worse for women, for people of color, and for people living in poverty. Meanwhile, it has substantially increased the wealth of billionaires.”

One serious question remains, and it concerns the media. Why do prestigious papers such as The Guardian and The New York Times consistently cheerlead philanthropists like Gates, refraining from any even mildly serious criticism? On the topic of vaccines, The Times featured a in March that contained, hidden in its depths, observations worthy of serious reporting. Investigative reporter Megan Twohey confessed that “we found time and again that there were a lot of people in the world of public health who would talk to us off the record about their concerns about Gates and his growing power and influence in the world of public health, but they were very reluctant to say so on the record, in large part because his money was everywhere.”

Twohey also remarks that “as he’s become more powerful, it has also become very difficult for people to imagine any more radical reform without his support.” Her editors apparently have never asked her to pen an article on Gates’ influence. With media like that, “radical reform” is indeed difficult to imagine in our current economy.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post For a Few Billion Dollars More appeared first on 51�Թ�.