https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQF9i3ETrnQ&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow
Sunday, November 15, 2020
BRAZIL: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS PROMISE GAINS FOR LEFT
By Brian Mier, Brasilwire.com.
November 14, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/brazil-municipal-elections-promise-gains-for-left/
Losses Expected For Bolsonaro.
Sunday’s elections promise to provide solid, but not breathtaking advances for the Brazilian left. On the other hand, all signs show that it will be a day of huge losses for the coalition tied to far right President Jair Bolsonaro.
On Sunday, November 15, residents of Brazil’s 5570 municipalities will vote for mayors and city councilors in what promises to be a day of moderate gains by left wing political parties and embarrassing loses for candidates aligned with Brazil’s far right President Jair Bolsonaro.
In 2012, the Brazilian Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores/PT) elected 638 mayors, including 19 in Brazil’s largest 95 cities (those with population above 200,000). In 2016, after 3 years of a relentless national and international media smear campaign based on false corruption allegations against President Dilma Rousseff during the lead up to the 2016 coup, the party took a beating, holding on to 254 mayor’s offices and only one of the largest 95 cities, Rio Branco.
This Sunday, the PT is expected to push its number of mayors over 400 and regain control over several cities over 200,000, with candidates currently battling for the lead in cities like Guarulhos and Vitoria, and candidates poised to make it to the second round in cities like Fortaleza and Recife.
Porto Alegre, the city which launched the World Social Forum, has a long history of leftist activism which is reflected in the name of its popular football team, International, founded in 1909 as Communist Anarchist International Sports Club of Porto Alegre. This year, after an 18 year hiatus, the left is poised to take back this city of 1.4 million, which is also known as the birth place of participatory budgeting. Manuela D’Ávila, from the center-left Brazilian Communist Party (Partido Communista do Brasil/PC do B) is widely leading in the polls on a coalition ticket with the PT.
The Socialism and Freedom Party (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade/PSOL) has only held a Mayor’s office once in a city over 200,000 since its founding in 2005. Clécio Luís was elected mayor of Macapa in 2012 and immediately formed a coalition government with the military dictatorship legacy party DEM, to the embarrassment of party members across the country. Party members hope that this year it will finally be able to deliver on its promises of democracy deepening and innovation in city governance as Edmilson Rodrigues, who served as mayor two times for PT, appears to be on the verge of a first round victory in Belem (pop. 1.5 million), in coalition with his former party. The biggest news, however, is that in São Paulo, PSOL candidate Guilherme Boulos, on a ticket with beloved, octogenarian former Mayor Luiza Erundina, has moved into second place and is poised to make it into the final round, against incumbent Bruno Covas (PSDB).
In Rio, the fact that a candidate from Ciro Gomes’ Democratic Workers Party (Partido Democrático Trabalhista/PDT), former police chief Martha Rocha, is on the verge of a possible run off with former Mayor Eduardo Paes prompted President Bolsonaro to spread rumours that, if elected, she will hire Gomes as her Chief of Staff. Another stand out in the Rio de Janeiro race is 78 year old Afro-brazilian rights legend and former Rio governor Benedita da Silva (PT), who has been neck and neck with Rocha in the polls.
The inappropriately named Brazilian Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Brasileiro/PSB), like many Brazilian parties, is essentially a loose coalition of local political elites which spans the ideological spectrum. Its most famous politician, football legend Romario, voted in favor of the 2016 coup but Luiza Erundina is a former member and it is still essentially a center left party in the Northeast. In Recife Joao Campos, son of former center-left governor and presidential candidate Eduardo Campos (who died in a mysterious plane crash weeks before the 2014 elections) is leading the race against his second cousin, Marília Arraes (PT), in a scenario which will probably result in a second round run-off.
In short, it appears that Sunday’s elections will provide solid, but not breathtaking advances for the Brazilian left. On the other hand, all signs show that it will be a day of huge loses for the coalition tied to far right President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro’s support for Universal Kingdom of God pastor/candidates Celso Russomano in São Paulo and Marcelo Crivela in Rio, let to both of them plummeting in the polls. After Bolsonaro expressed support for Russomano in São Paulo he dropped from leading the polls to third place, behind PSOL candidate Guilherme Boulos. In Rio, after Bolsonaro publicly supported Crivela, he dropped from first place and is now trailing former centrist Mayor Eduardo Paes (MDB) by 20 points in the polls.
Furthermore, in the capitals of some of the states where Bolsonaro was elected by his widest margins, his candidates are polling in the low single digits. Bolsonaro took over 70% of the vote in the Amazon state of Rondonia, but his leading coalition partner, Lindomar Garçon, is polling at only 5%.
One of the most interesting elections underway is in the tiny town of Eldorado, São Paulo, where Jair Bolsonaro passed most of his childhood. Around 2000 of the town’s approximately 8000 voters live in a dozen quilombolas, communities founded by escaped slaves in the 19th Century, which have similar land rights to indigenous reservations. As Bolsonaro threatens to remove land rights from indigenous reservations and quilombolas, a mayoral candidate, Dr. Oriel, and 4 candidates for city council, are quilombola residents running for the PT. An Afro-brazilian PT mayor from a quilombola in Bolsonaro’s home town would be a thorn in his side.
Democrat Assures Fox News Nothing Would Fundamentally Change Under Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsQ1yqVFdI&ab_channel=SecularTalk
Reasserting the Importance of Committed, Truthful, On-the-Ground Reporting on the Centenary of John Reed’s Passing
John Reed was confronted with the choice between popular and profitable hypocrisy in the capitalist journals, and disreputable truth in the revolutionary press. He chose the truth.
November 14, 2020 Juan Antonio Sanz EQUAL TIMES
https://portside.org/2020-11-14/reasserting-importance-committed-truthful-ground-reporting-centenary-john-reeds-passing
On 17 October 1920, just days before his 33rd birthday, American journalist John Reed, author of Insurgent Mexico, a book covering the Mexican Revolution, and Ten Days that Shook the World, the most famous chronicle of the October Revolution of 1917, died of typhus in a Russian hospital in Moscow. Both of these works and Reed’s career now constitute an invaluable example of engaged journalism committed to social justice while ensuring truthful reporting, respect for sources and the indispensable need for the journalist to be where the news is happening.
Reed was a forerunner of narrative or literary journalism, capable of taking his readers to the scene of the events and giving them a sense of the atmosphere surrounding them, many decades before Tom Wolfe made it fashionable under the generic term ‘new journalism’ or authors such as Rodolfo Walsh, Truman Capote, Gay Talese or Nobel Prize winner Gabriel García Márquez elevated it to the category of a literary genre.
One of Reed’s ‘brothers in arms’ and author of one of the most insightful introductions to Ten Days that Shook the World (1919), journalist Albert Rhys Williams, wrote a highly detailed portrayal of the US journalist in action in the full throes of the Revolution: “He collected material wherever he could find it, moving from place to place. He collected complete files of the Pravda and Izvestia, all the proclamations, booklets, posters, and announcements. Posters were a special passion. Every time a new poster appeared, he did not hesitate to tear it from the wall if there was no other way of getting it.” According to Williams: “Those who wanted to be abreast of contemporary affairs needed only to follow John Reed, for he always hastened, a kind of storm bird, to wherever big things happened.”
John Reed, journalist, poet, adventurer, political activist and workers’ rights defender, is the only US citizen whose remains are buried in the most sacrosanct place in the Russia that inherited the Soviet Union, the foot of the Kremlin Wall.
This empire of empires was to emerge a few years after the triumph of the Revolution, in October and November 1917, an event Reed recounted in a way few others could aspire to.
John Reed was born into a wealthy family in Portland, Oregon, on 22 October 1887. The future chronicler of conflicts and revolutions graduated from Harvard in 1910 and his interests soon turned from adolescent heroic fantasies towards the social struggle and journalism. In 1913, Reed’s life reached a turning point that shaped his political engagement. Having joined the staff of The Masses, a socialist publication headed by Max Eastman, Reed covered a series of serious labour disputes in the United States that reinforced his vision of journalism as a tool for denouncing social injustice. War in Paterson, his article on the silk workers’ strikes in New Jersey dates back to that time. As an uncomfortable witness to such labour struggles, Reed had his first experience as a guest of the federal prison system, one that would be repeated throughout his life, including in Finland, where he was imprisoned many years later on suspicion of spying for Bolshevik Russia.
Being on the scene
Reed travelled to Mexico in 1913 as a correspondent for Metropolitan Magazine, to cover the Mexican Revolution for almost four months. During his time there, he was able to interview and develop a good rapport with the guerrilla and revolutionary leader Pancho Villa, who fondly nicknamed the US correspondent ‘Chatito’. The 1914 book Insurgent Mexico was the result of those months spent chronicling the war and the insurrection, a book that would earn him great prestige as a war correspondent and paved the way for his journey to Europe, where he was sent to cover the First World War.
In The Traders’ War, an article written in September 1914 for The Masses, Reed explained that the war in Europe was, in fact, a “clash of traders”. In The Worst Thing in Europe, an article also written for The Masses, in March 1915, he gave a brief insight into Russia’s “military might”, a presage of what was to come two years later, when its army fell apart, abandoned the front and joined the Revolution: “The Russian army, inexhaustible hordes of simple peasants torn from their farms, blessed by a priest, and knouted into battle for a cause they had never heard of…,” wrote Reed.
One of the keys to Reed’s ability to describe events with such precision, and irrespective of his own political assessment of them, is that he was always on the scene of the events as they were happening.
Unlike now, in the midst of the 21st century, when the internet has become the main source of information and an excuse for not sending reporters to the scene of events, a century ago, if you wanted to write with sufficient accuracy and objectivity about any event, the Russian Revolution, for example, you had to be in Petrograd, in Moscow or on board the convoy that carried the forces of Alexander Kerensky’s provisional government to crush the Bolsheviks in the imperial city.
And that is what John Reed did. That is why he headed to Petrograd, now St. Petersburg, to give a first-hand account of the by then unstoppable Revolution. John Reed and his then partner, Louise Bryant, a feminist, left-wing activist and also a journalist, set off for Europe at the end of August 1917, with Petrograd as their final destination. It was the start of their Russian adventure.
The US journalist described in great detail the events rapidly unfolding in Russia and that formed part of the history of those “ten days that shook the world”. In a report sent to The New York Call on 22 November 1917, but which corresponds to the events of 7 November according to the Gregorian calendar (25 October 1917 according to the Julian calendar followed in Russia at the time), Reed offered this brief insight into one world that was collapsing and another that was emerging: “This morning I was at the scene of the dispersal of the Junkers [military school cadets] defending the Winter Palace by the Soviet troops. In the afternoon I was present at the opening of the All-Russian Assembly of Soviets. In the evening I witnessed the assault on the Winter Palace, entering with the first Bolsheviki troops.”
In his 1975 biography of the journalist, Romantic Revolutionary, Robert A. Rosenstone writes that the Revolution was a “dream incarnate” for Reed, who “soared into a realm of visionary transcendence”. Many in the United States had an exotic and mystical notion of Russia at the turn of the century. It was the land of the “Slavic soul”, a mystical force expressed by figures such as Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Stravinsky or Diaghilev, the “polar opposite” to America’s materialism and pragmatism, according to Rosenstone.
The human tragedy of the First World War and the February 1917 revolution that toppled Tsar Nicholas II put an end to that, and what was happening in Russia started to be viewed as an almost millennium-long struggle between autocracy and democracy. Reed himself went on to apologise for not having understood what was happening from the outset. In an article for The Masses, in July 1917, prior to the tsunami of the October Revolution, Reed noted that although the focus in the analysis of Russia during those world war years was placed on its role in the struggle, the real key was the long frustrated uprising of the Russian masses, the purpose of which was to establish “a new human society on earth”. And even then he forecast that the drivers of this change would be the Soviets, “the real revolutionary heart of the New Russia”.
Pascual Serrano, journalist and expert in international politics, underlines John Reed’s ability to understand and interpret the events of the Russian Revolution, something which left Russian historians and scholars astonished from the outset. Serrano, author of the 2011 book Contra la Neutralidad (Against Neutrality), in which he analyses John Reed’s commitment to the truth and social rights, explains that this insight may have been due to the fact that he was a “foreign” correspondent, capable of perceiving details that a local analyst would perhaps overlook.
For Serrano, who also refers in his book to the committed journalism of authors such as Rodolfo Walsh, Robert Capa, Edgar Snow and Ryszard Kapuscinski, another of Reed’s skills was to give a voice to the leading characters of the stories, whether it be the striking textile workers in Paterson, United States, in the uprising in the dusty lands of northern Mexico, in the trenches of the Great War or in the Smolny Institute in Petrograd, where the Bolsheviks set up their headquarters. The aim was to break down false stereotypes through information and truthful reporting. Reed makes this clear in the preface to his book on the Russian Revolution:
“In the struggle my sympathies were not neutral. But in telling the story of those great days I have tried to see events with the eye of a conscientious reporter, interested in setting down the truth.”
In 1919, a year before he fell fatally ill with typhus, Reed was able to publish his most popular work, despite the obstacles put in his way by the conservative, anti-communist forces in the United States. Reed was not only confronted with condemnation on this front, but also with criticism from the inert socialist movement in his country at the time. Reed was a member of the Third International, but he was not forgiven, in socialist circles, for his independence, and not least his imagination. Max Eastman, editor of The Masses, summarised the situation in a speech paying tribute to Reed. He said, “John Reed was confronted with the choice between popular and profitable hypocrisy in the capitalist journals, and lonely disreputable truth in the revolutionary press. And he chose the truth”.
Our Vaccine Infrastructure Needs a Radical Overhaul
Decades-long funding cuts for pandemic preparedness hamper coordinated distribution and equitable access. We must reimagine how to make life-saving vaccines available to everyone.
November 14, 2020 Ravi Gupta BOSTON REVIEW
https://portside.org/2020-11-14/our-vaccine-infrastructure-needs-radical-overhaul
Nearly a year into a pandemic that has killed more than a million people and laid waste to both public health systems and the global economy, many have turned their hopes to a vaccine. Optimism has been buoyed by the historic pace of development of multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates and the recent news that Pfizer, in partnership with the small company BioNTech, has reported preliminary data on a vaccine candidate showing 90 percent effectiveness. The arrival of a vaccine in the next few months would be a remarkable feat, but fundamental questions—beyond basic assurances of safety and efficacy—remain. Will there be enough doses, and who will get them?
This is not the first time we face questions of equitably deploying a vaccine during an outbreak. Eleven years ago, as the H1N1 virus swept across the United States and 73 other countries, the World Health Organization declared the first pandemic in over forty years. H1N1 seemed deadlier and more transmissible than seasonal influenza. Recollections of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic’s colossal death toll occupied the collective psyche. An H1N1 vaccine seemed essential to prevent history from repeating, much as a COVID-19 vaccine does now.
Development of an H1N1 vaccine progressed rapidly, in large part due to existing technology and regulatory systems for seasonal influenza vaccines. But avoiding preventable deaths required ensuring the vaccine’s prompt manufacturing and equitable distribution within the U.S. and across the world. Manufacturing delays led to shortages that complicated an already halting domestic distribution plan, and by the time the vaccine supply increased, the pandemic had waned. All told, 90 of 162 million doses were utilized in the United States. The rest were donated to other countries (after broken pledges to do so earlier) or simply thrown away. A truth was illuminated that persists today: the prevailing system of vaccine production and distribution is not designed to promote equitable access.
Much has changed since the H1N1 pandemic. Technological platforms have advanced considerably. International institutions have forged partnerships to prioritize therapeutic and vaccine candidates. Financing of vaccine development has evolved, with the creation of non-profit entities like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).
Yet much remains the same. Vaccine manufacturing remains unprepared for surges and without a global entity charged with centralized financing. International legal agreements ensuring equitable access are non-enforceable. The international hoarding and price gouging for personal protective equipment early in this pandemic are harbingers for vaccine maldistribution to the highest bidder. Within the United States, in particular, decades-long funding cuts for pandemic preparedness and public health hamper coordinated distribution for efficient access. Surviving a pandemic requires extraordinary movement on these issues. We must reimagine how to make life-saving vaccines available to everyone, for pathogens both new and old.
Deployment of H1N1 vaccines faced a bottleneck that we still face today: insufficient manufacturing capacity. Coordination between manufacturers, government agencies, and universities in multiple continents led to the FDA approval of four H1N1 vaccines within six months. But enough vaccine could simply not be produced in time. Years of industry consolidation due to limited profits from vaccine development had left just three companies available to manufacture the majority of global influenza vaccines. Manufacturing capacity was dependent on well-established but time-consuming and unpredictable egg-based technology from World War II, while production lines were already occupied with seasonal flu vaccines.
Today, the leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates rely on novel technology that hasn’t yet been deployed at scale. These platforms have the potential for faster production, but they will likely face unforeseen difficulties. Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, for example—like Pfizer and BioNTech’s—require temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain stability, whereas H1N1 vaccines were easily stored in small fridges. COVID-19 vaccines will likely require two doses, doubling the total number needed, while H1N1 vaccines required just one.
At the root of the manufacturing problem is a near exclusive reliance on the private sector, which has limited incentives for preemptive investment. As a result, funding hastily flows from public coffers to private companies to bolster manufacturing capacity once an outbreak has already begun. During the H1N1 pandemic, the U.S. government awarded contracts to manufacturers to upgrade their facilities and start vaccine production. With COVID-19, we’ve seen a dizzying number of agreements between governments and private companies to scale production, among them agreements facilitated by the U.S. public-private partnership Operation Warp Speed.
Of course, it isn’t feasible to expect immediate global availability of sixteen billion doses. But a reactive approach to vaccine production grounded in a market-based logic de-emphasizes the long-term readiness and preparation needed for efficient and equitable deployment of a vaccine in a pandemic.
We need an alternative approach that centers on maintaining public manufacturing facilities to respond to the acute needs of an outbreak before it happens. In the wake of H1N1, the U.S. government invested in developing four manufacturing sites in concert with a university and private companies. But these facilities lacked sustained development and were unequipped for rapid, mass production during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the past few months, substantial Operation Warp Speed funds have gone to the Texas A&M University System and Emergent Solutions to partner with vaccine developers to manufacture doses. It remains to be seen whether an injection of funds at this moment will help construct and maintain a sustainable, public manufacturing sector for future outbreaks. We should recognize that preparedness is not a novel concept; epidemiologists and national security experts alike have been arguing about its importance for decades. Twenty years ago, science journalist Laurie Garrett characterized the collapse of global health infrastructure as a “betrayal of trust.” We are witnessing the effects of that betrayal today.
An initial vaccine shortfall necessitates thoughtful distribution to enable equitable global access. The H1N1 pandemic exposed glaring disparities between rich and poor nations in procuring vaccines. Before a pandemic was even declared, developed countries placed large advance orders with manufacturers. The World Health Organization secured small donation commitments from developed countries and manufacturers for developing countries. The United States pledged to donate 10 percent of its vaccines, but as H1N1 cases and vaccine shortages increased, it rescinded its offer. Canada and Australia permitted exports from their domestic manufacturers only after their own citizens were immunized. Eventually, 78 million doses—an inadequate amount to begin with—were donated to 77 countries, but the worst of the pandemic had already passed.
Fears of such vaccine nationalism—countries prioritizing their own populations at the expense of a globally coordinated strategy—have materialized in the current pandemic, too. Multilateral advance market commitments, a form of payment to manufacturers predicated on proof of a successful vaccine, are meant to equitably allocate vaccines among countries. Various advance market commitments (AMCs) have been proposed and created for COVID-19 vaccines, including $2 billion in urgent funding specifically for low- and middle-income country AMCs as part of an effort by the COVAX facility—an international collaboration between the World Health Organization, CEPI, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—to deliver 2 billion doses globally by the end of 2021. (COVAX estimates the total cost for delivering on its plan to be $18.1 billion.)
Though advance market commitments such as the Gavi-led pneumococcal vaccine fund have been used successfully (though not without criticism of its price and lack of transparency), COVID-19 is the first test of whether they can function during a pandemic affecting wealthy and poor countries simultaneously. Bilateral agreements between manufacturers and individual wealthy countries who seek to guarantee their own supply have undermined the COVAX advance market commitment and precluded efficient and equitable global allocation of potential vaccines. Pfizer and BioNTech, for instance, have yet to sign any agreements to provide developing countries with their vaccine, and the majority of their initial supply has already been claimed by wealthier countries.
An enforceable trade and investment agreement is needed. Sadly, simply beginning these discussions seems too advanced when the Trump administration has amazingly sought to withdraw funding and support from the World Health Organization and refused to join COVAX—even though more than 150 countries have joined.
The absence of a global strategy encompassing high-risk populations is morally reprehensible, but it also makes no biological or economic sense. The virus will continue to spread without coordination for vaccine allocation based on need. Elements of international integration and global travel that accelerated this pandemic will perpetuate transmission. Global trade and tourism will further suffer. COVID-19 has far surpassed H1N1’s scale, but a fundamental lesson remains: going it alone is a strategy in which no one emerges victorious.
Until enough vaccines are produced, the United States will face similar challenges of equitable allocation and distribution domestically. The availability of H1N1 vaccine within the United States was beset by distribution difficulties despite extensive planning. Autopsies of H1N1 vaccination efforts demonstrate how vaccines were distributed to states without accounting for their projected need. Ill-conceived tracking systems for vaccine administration and unclear communication about multiple vaccine formulations and target groups created misperceptions.
COVID-19 vaccine distribution promises to be even more complicated given multiple encouraging candidates, which may only be efficacious in certain populations and require multiple doses. In a recent missive, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention placed responsibility on state and local health departments to identify vaccine target groups, manage vaccination plans, and track administration. This seems reasonable, but it fails to account for the decades of inexplicable, myopic funding cuts to state and local health departments.
Public health departments will be hard-pressed not only to overcome existing racial and class disparities in health care access and vaccination rates but also to address inequities in infections and deaths from coronavirus due to structural racism. As with seasonal influenza vaccines, there were troubling inequities in H1N1 vaccine rates among African Americans and Hispanics, the same groups who were particularly vulnerable to infection because of poverty, chronic medical conditions, inability to socially distance, and lower health care access. Baseline disparities and underfunding of public health departments complicate efforts to avoid similar mistakes with COVID-19, which has been devastatingly concentrated among Black, Latinx, and Native American communities.
A National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report released last month detailed a plan for equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, and to its credit, includes an assessment of social vulnerability as an underlying principle for allocation. To the extent possible, black and brown communities, members of which constitute large proportions of essential workers unable to socially distance from home, must be prioritized for vaccine allocation.
Moreover, state Medicaid programs, which provide insurance coverage for nearly a third of the Black and a third of the Latinx nonelderly U.S. population, also face barriers to equitably delivering vaccines. Low Medicaid reimbursement rates for providers preclude their ability to vaccinate individuals fully and rapidly. During H1N1, states were left to determine their own reimbursement rates, but for COVID-19, federal support is needed to help increase providers’ ability to reach communities of color.
In so many ways, we are in unprecedented territory. But though the players have changed—a novel coronavirus, innovative vaccine technologies, newly formed international organizations—the game is in many other ways the same: constantly playing catchup, rewarding those with influence, unable to collectively share the fruits of human ingenuity. Nothing about this is immutable.
There are signs of progress, and lawmakers have taken notice. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Jan Schakowsky proposed the COVID-19 Emergency Manufacturing Act of 2020, which seeks to establish a public system for manufacturing medicines and vaccines. If enacted, the legislation would require COVID-19 products be made available for free domestically and at cost internationally. Congresswoman Schakowsky also introduced the Make Medications Affordable by Preventing Pandemic Price-gouging Act, which prohibits monopolies on new, taxpayer-funded COVID-19 drugs and waives exclusive licenses for any drugs during a public health emergency.
The key is to extend these early steps beyond this pandemic. COVID-19 has been hailed as a once in a generation pandemic. But in this century alone we have experienced outbreaks with the potential to convert into a pandemic every few years. Old diseases spread unabated and new, more lethal viruses lie tentatively dormant. Without any changes to the underlying drivers—climate change, unchecked deforestation, increasing global travel—why should we expect that this pattern will change?
A pandemic exacerbates chronic, vexing problems, but it also sharpens our understanding of them. Crises offer rare opportunities to fundamentally change the paradigm of producing and delivering life-saving vaccines to everyone. While vaccines are far from a cure-all when it comes to fighting outbreaks, they are undeniably important. The arrival of a COVID-19 vaccine may return us to normal, but we must do better than normal—both for this pandemic and the inevitable next one.
Trump Fires Top Pentagon Officials
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lbd01-NtCM&ab_channel=SecularTalk
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)