https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3igJnH2lhI
Saturday, August 15, 2020
A Message to the Left About Kamala Harris — And Us
Should activists sit this election out? Not if you believe in activism. The right tactical call for activists is to elect the politicians they're most able to cajole, persuade, and pressure. That means viewing politicians in a different light...
August 13, 2020 Richard Eskow COMMON DREAMS
https://portside.org/2020-08-13/message-left-about-kamala-harris-and-us
Millions of people have worked for change in this country in recent years. An incomplete list includes the Occupy movement, Standing Rock, the Sunrise movement, the Bernie Sanders campaigns, Black Lives Matter, the Red State teachers' strikes, and the Women's Marches. For the activist left (I include myself in this group), here's a thought: It matters who Joe Biden chose for vice president. Of course, it does. But it doesn't matter as much as you do. If you stay committed, if you unite your movements into a broad alliance for social and economic change, change will come. You have that power.
There's no way to sugarcoat it: If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are elected, they'll still be influenced by the powerful forces that have shaped their careers. Biden has reassured billionaires that he doesn't think they're the problem. Wall Street has celebrated Biden's decision to choose Harris.
That's where you come in. Your activism—your constant, fearless, unyielding calls to conscience and sanity—will be the only counterforce to the pernicious influence of money in politics.
Kamala Harris addresses the media about migrant children in front of a detention center in Homestead, Florida on June 28, 2019.
Photo: Rhona Wise / AFP / Getty Images // Common Dreams
Should activists sit this election out? Not if you believe in activism. The right tactical call for activists is to elect the politicians they're most able to cajole, persuade, and pressure. That means viewing politicians in a different light: not as heroes or villains, but as tools. (And, no, I don't mean "tool" in the pejorative, slang sense—at least, not necessarily.) Confronted with the choice between Trump or Biden, the question isn't, which of these people do I admire? The question is, which of these people can I most effectively use as a tool for change? "Should activists sit this election out? Not if you believe in activism."
Too many people in this country's progressive majority—a category that ranges from center-left to socialist—are still searching for heroes when they vote. There aren't many heroes in politics—although there are some, and their ranks are growing. But there are people that can be tools for change. Find them. Use them. But when it comes to heroes, look to yourselves. As the great civil rights leader Ella Baker said, "strong people don't need strong leaders."
You are strong. Stay strong.
For the white people among us, let's not forget how inspiring the Harris choice is for millions of people, especially Black women and girls. That's something to celebrate. It's important and beautiful. But there's no reason to abandon left policy goals. It takes nothing away from this moment to point out that Bernie Sanders consistently polled better than Harris herself among Black voters. People want a government that looks like the people, and they want one that works for the people, too.
Contrary to some recent centrist propaganda, "identity" politics and class politics are not in conflict. They never have been. In fact, the economic left has always been in the vanguard of alliance with social justice. Its leaders have long included women, people of color, and members of other oppressed groups, decades before that was true in other social spheres.
As for Harris' policy record: it's mixed. She's taken some excellent positions, some that weren't as good, and others that seemed to float in a Schrodinger's-cat reality—either alive nor dead.
Take healthcare. As someone who knows health economics quite well, I watched with some dismay as Kamala Harris watered down her own views on Medicare For All. She first stated—correctly—that private insurers should have no part in the health insurance system. Then she pivoted and attacked the Sanders plan, calling instead for a national Medicare system run by private insurers along the "Medicare Advantage." Medicare Advantage plans pose serious problems, some of which Diane Archer and I explored here.
Then there are her most objectionable words and deeds: on the (non)-prosecution of Steve Mnuchin, on cozying up to AIPAC, on policing, and truancy. She needs to know that people are aware of that record, and that they'll be watching what she does going forward.
As a candidate, Harris never seemed to be wedded to any particular policy proposal. Like Biden, she appears to lack an ideological core. While that can be seen as a character defect, it actually affords an opportunity. Biden and Harris may turn out to be malleable on policy in ways that the more ideologically neoliberal Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, were not."Biden and Harris may turn out to be malleable on policy in ways that the more ideologically neoliberal Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, were not."
Some of you will argue that this is a naive thought. We'll find out if they win. But we know they'll be more malleable than Trump. Yes, their administration will probably be filled with the usual centrist suspects. And the wealthy will have far more influence than they should. But you'll have influence, too—if you stay organized. They can't afford to lose your support.
Sorry if I seem to be pontificating. After all, a strong people don't need strong leaders. But this is a time to speak, for anyone who has something to say. Personally, I want a radically different world than the one we live in today—a world mainstream politicians can't imagine, much less build. I believe we'll need that kind of world to survive what's coming. But we will have to cross a long, hard political landscape before we reach it.
With this announcement, movement activists now have more information about the terrain they'll need to navigate. Information is power. So is activism. My plea to you, as someone with no particular standing to make a plea, is this: Use this information. Stay powerful. Know that you can win—that we can win—if we love, hope, and work together.
‘WESTERN’ MEDIA FALSELY CLAIM RUSSIA’S COVID-19 VACCINE IS READY
By Moon of Alabama.
August 13, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/western-media-falsely-claim-russias-covid-19-vaccine-is-ready/
After President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Covid-19 vaccine candidate had gained an approval from its regulator, ‘western’ media went into a anti-Russian frenzy to sow fear and doubt about it.
https://popularresistance.org/western-media-falsely-claim-russias-covid-19-vaccine-is-ready/
After President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Covid-19 vaccine candidate had gained an approval from its regulator, ‘western’ media went into a anti-Russian frenzy to sow fear and doubt about it.
Russia coronavirus vaccine approved, Vladimir Putin says. But questions over its safety remain
We have no idea if the Russian Covid vaccine is safe or effective
Russia’s coronavirus vaccine rush has ‘high risk’ of backfiring: CSIS
German health minister says he’s sceptical about Russian COVID-19 vaccine
Russia Approves Coronavirus Vaccine Before Completing Tests
‘Reckless and foolish’: Why Russia’s vaccine has experts alarmed
Russia claims a win in the vaccine race. But would you take a vaccine from Vladimir Putin?
Russia Coronavirus Vaccine, Given to Putin’s Daughter, Not on WHO List of 6 Candidates in Phase 3 Trials
Fauci says he ‘seriously doubts’ that Russia has developed a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine after Putin approved of the world’s first vaccine
All the above, just as this one, are based on a willful misinterpretation of the Russian announcement:
Russia has become the first country in the world to approve a vaccine for the coronavirus, President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Tuesday, though global health authorities say the vaccine has yet to complete critical, late-stage clinical trials to determine its safety and effectiveness.Mr. Putin, who told a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning that the vaccine “works effectively enough,” said that his own daughter had taken it. And in a congratulatory note to the nation, he thanked the scientists who developed the vaccine for “this first, very important step for our country, and generally for the whole world.”
…
By skipping large-scale clinical trials, the Russian dash for a vaccine has raised widespread concern that it is circumventing vital steps — and potentially endangering people — in order to score global propaganda points.
Russia has not approved a vaccine against Covid-19 and it is not skipping large-scale clinical trials.
The Russia regulator gave a preliminary approval for a vaccine candidate to start the large-scale clinical trial. This is similar to an emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Science Magazine is one of the few media who got it right:
In a startling and confusing move, Russia claimed today it had approved the world’s first COVID-19 vaccine, as the nation’s Ministry of Health issued what’s called a registration certificate for a vaccine candidate that has been tested in just 76 people. The certificate allows the vaccine, developed by the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow, to be given to “a small number of citizens from vulnerable groups,” including medical staff and the elderly, a Ministry of Health spokesperson tells ScienceInsider. But the certificate stipulates that the vaccine cannot be used widely until 1 January 2021, presumably after larger clinical trials have been completed.
…
A website for Sputnik V says a phase III efficacy trial involving more than 2000 people will begin on 12 August in Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Mexico. Mass production of the vaccine is slated to begin in September.
The Russian vaccine candidate is based on two variants of the human adenovirus which can cause the common cold. These virus have also been used in other reliable vaccines. There DNA has been modified to include the building plan for the spike protein that allows SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells. When the modified adenovirus is applied it induces human cells to create the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That then sets off the immune system which will develop specific anti-bodies (IdG) and memory cells (T-cells) against the spike protein. Should the immunized person later get infected with SARS-CoV-2 its immune system will be ready to defeat the virus.
The Russian vaccine candidate is administered in two shots. The primary one is based on a modified adenovirus-26. A secondary shot, three weeks later, is based on a modified adenovirus-5. Two different types of the virus are used because some people are already immune against some of its variants. The second shot is supposed to boost the immune response.
Science Magazine notes that there is some concern about the efficiency of the second shot:
Some vaccine experts have raised concerns about COVID-19 vaccines that use adenovirus 5 in this way. In 2007, researchers stopped an HIV vaccine trial that used adenovirus 5 to shuttle in the gene for the surface protein of that virus after they found that it increased the likelihood of its transmission.
Several of the other vaccines candidates that are currently undergoing testing also rely on a modified adenovirus. The vaccine candidate developed by the British Jenner Institute in Oxford together with AstraZeneca uses one that usually infects chimpanzees.
The Russian vaccine candidate will, like all others, have to go through the now announced third trial phase before it will get any general approval.
There is no excuse for the media to wrongly claim that Russia has approved a ready to go vaccine. The Sputnik Vaccine website explains in seven languages that the third trial phase of the clinical trials is still to come.
ANALYSIS: COVID-19 DEATHS LIKELY UNDERCOUNTED BY OVER 50,000
By Kate Randall, WSWS.
August 13, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/analysis-covid-19-deaths-likely-undercounted-by-over-50000/
Analysis Shows 54,000 “Excess Deaths” In US, Pointing To Coronavirus Death Toll Of 200,700.
More than 165,000 Americans have now died from the coronavirus, according to Johns Hopkins University data. The US passed the grim statistic of 5 million cases of COVID-19 earlier this month. As horrifying as these figures are, a new analysis shows that the number of deaths from the coronavirus likely has been significantly undercounted.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed by the New York Times have revealed that 200,700 people died from March 15, when the pandemic took hold, to July 25. This is 54,000 higher than the confirmed death toll, averaged, for the same time period in the previous three years. Excess deaths in the analysis are rounded to the nearest hundred.
These 54,000 “excess deaths” are defined by the CDC as “the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time periods and expected numbers of deaths in the same time periods.” The analysis strongly indicates that these excess deaths have been caused by the virus itself or by conditions triggered by the upheaval resulting from the pandemic.
The Times looked at CDC figures for deaths from all causes, adjusting current death records to account for typical reporting lags. This allows for comparisons that don’t rely on the availability of COVID-19 tests in a given place or on the accuracy of cause-of-death reporting. Epidemiologists generally agree that assessing excess deaths is the best way to assess the impact of the pandemic.
Higher than normal death rates are widespread for the vast majority of US states. Only Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and West Virginia have death counts that look similar to recent years. Through July 25, the Times analysis shows that there were about 37 percent more excess deaths in the US than the official coronavirus fatality count.
New York City, the early epicenter of the outbreak, has suffered the most dramatic increase in deaths. During the peak of the outbreak in the city, deaths surged to seven times the usual number. Overall, New York City had 27,200 excess deaths during the period analyzed.
In addition to New York City, four states recorded deaths at least 10 percent higher than the normal level. New Jersey saw 18,000 deaths from May to July. New York State, excluding New York City, recorded 14,200 excess deaths. Texas had 13,500 excess deaths; California had 13,400.
While the states with the highest rates of excess deaths were in the Northeast and the West, other states in the West as well as states in the South began to show higher numbers in July, adding to their overall count. These include Florida, with 9,700 excess deaths during the study period; Arizona, with 6,100; and South Carolina, with 3,200.
The Times analysis shows that the pandemic’s toll cannot be attributed simply to the virus killing vulnerable people who would have died anyway. Most of the excess deaths revealed by the analysis could be attributed to the virus itself, but it is also likely that deaths from other causes have also risen due to hospitals being overwhelmed by COVID patients. People suffering from conditions that should be survivable have not sought care out of fear of contracting the virus. Such conditions include heart attack and stroke.
In addition, people who have died at home have had their cause of death listed as pneumonia or other conditions that were likely caused by COVID-19.
The lack of a coordinated nationwide testing system, which would identify coronavirus cases, has contributed to an undercounting of deaths from the virus. While the death toll rises, coronavirus testing is dropping significantly. According to the COVID Tracking Project, the average number of daily tests conducted in the US fell from 809,200 in the week ending July 26 to 712,112 last week.
As the WSWS has reported, there is no systematic testing for workers. There is also a lag in testing results that renders testing virtually useless for contact tracing.
The ruling elite has little interest in identifying COVID cases. Rather, it is laser focused on forcing workers back on the job and sending children back to school. The decline in testing is part of the ruling class’ policy of “malign neglect.”
The Times analysis of CDC data shows that the devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic is even more devastating than the official figures indicate.
August 13, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/analysis-covid-19-deaths-likely-undercounted-by-over-50000/
Analysis Shows 54,000 “Excess Deaths” In US, Pointing To Coronavirus Death Toll Of 200,700.
More than 165,000 Americans have now died from the coronavirus, according to Johns Hopkins University data. The US passed the grim statistic of 5 million cases of COVID-19 earlier this month. As horrifying as these figures are, a new analysis shows that the number of deaths from the coronavirus likely has been significantly undercounted.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed by the New York Times have revealed that 200,700 people died from March 15, when the pandemic took hold, to July 25. This is 54,000 higher than the confirmed death toll, averaged, for the same time period in the previous three years. Excess deaths in the analysis are rounded to the nearest hundred.
These 54,000 “excess deaths” are defined by the CDC as “the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time periods and expected numbers of deaths in the same time periods.” The analysis strongly indicates that these excess deaths have been caused by the virus itself or by conditions triggered by the upheaval resulting from the pandemic.
The Times looked at CDC figures for deaths from all causes, adjusting current death records to account for typical reporting lags. This allows for comparisons that don’t rely on the availability of COVID-19 tests in a given place or on the accuracy of cause-of-death reporting. Epidemiologists generally agree that assessing excess deaths is the best way to assess the impact of the pandemic.
Higher than normal death rates are widespread for the vast majority of US states. Only Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and West Virginia have death counts that look similar to recent years. Through July 25, the Times analysis shows that there were about 37 percent more excess deaths in the US than the official coronavirus fatality count.
New York City, the early epicenter of the outbreak, has suffered the most dramatic increase in deaths. During the peak of the outbreak in the city, deaths surged to seven times the usual number. Overall, New York City had 27,200 excess deaths during the period analyzed.
In addition to New York City, four states recorded deaths at least 10 percent higher than the normal level. New Jersey saw 18,000 deaths from May to July. New York State, excluding New York City, recorded 14,200 excess deaths. Texas had 13,500 excess deaths; California had 13,400.
While the states with the highest rates of excess deaths were in the Northeast and the West, other states in the West as well as states in the South began to show higher numbers in July, adding to their overall count. These include Florida, with 9,700 excess deaths during the study period; Arizona, with 6,100; and South Carolina, with 3,200.
The Times analysis shows that the pandemic’s toll cannot be attributed simply to the virus killing vulnerable people who would have died anyway. Most of the excess deaths revealed by the analysis could be attributed to the virus itself, but it is also likely that deaths from other causes have also risen due to hospitals being overwhelmed by COVID patients. People suffering from conditions that should be survivable have not sought care out of fear of contracting the virus. Such conditions include heart attack and stroke.
In addition, people who have died at home have had their cause of death listed as pneumonia or other conditions that were likely caused by COVID-19.
The lack of a coordinated nationwide testing system, which would identify coronavirus cases, has contributed to an undercounting of deaths from the virus. While the death toll rises, coronavirus testing is dropping significantly. According to the COVID Tracking Project, the average number of daily tests conducted in the US fell from 809,200 in the week ending July 26 to 712,112 last week.
As the WSWS has reported, there is no systematic testing for workers. There is also a lag in testing results that renders testing virtually useless for contact tracing.
The ruling elite has little interest in identifying COVID cases. Rather, it is laser focused on forcing workers back on the job and sending children back to school. The decline in testing is part of the ruling class’ policy of “malign neglect.”
The Times analysis of CDC data shows that the devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic is even more devastating than the official figures indicate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)