#The pandemic and developing nations

[greenthestral]

The Global Divide Widens: How the Pandemic Caused the First Rise in Between-Country Income Inequality in a Generation

The COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented global crisis, has left no corner of the world untouched. As nations struggled to combat the virus and its economic fallout, an alarming consequence emerged: the first rise in between-country income inequality in a generation. The pandemic's impact on economies has been uneven, leading to significant disparities in wealth and prosperity among nations. This article delves into the factors behind this growing global divide, its consequences, and the urgent need for collective action to address income inequality on an international scale.

The Global Economic Shock

When the pandemic struck, nations scrambled to implement restrictions, shutdowns, and social distancing measures to contain the spread. These actions disrupted supply chains, hampered production, and forced many businesses to close temporarily or permanently. Consequently, economies experienced severe contractions, leading to widespread job losses and reduced consumer spending.

However, not all countries were affected equally. Advanced economies with robust healthcare systems and strong fiscal policies managed to weather the storm better than developing or low-income nations. They were able to provide extensive stimulus packages to support businesses and citizens, preventing a complete economic collapse. On the other hand, many developing countries lacked the resources and capacity to respond effectively, exacerbating their economic struggles.

The K-Shaped Recovery

As the pandemic raged on, a phenomenon known as the "K-shaped recovery" emerged, where different segments of society experienced divergent economic trajectories. This concept extended to the global level as well, highlighting the varying degrees of impact on countries.

Some developed nations witnessed a swift recovery due to their ability to adapt to remote work and technology-based solutions. At the same time, several emerging economies faced prolonged recessions and setbacks, pushing them further behind. The disparity in economic growth between these two groups of countries widened, contributing to the rise in between-country income inequality.

Trade and Travel Disruptions

International trade and travel restrictions during the pandemic significantly affected economies' interconnectedness. Many nations rely heavily on trade partnerships and tourism for economic growth, but the restrictions disrupted these crucial income streams.

For countries heavily reliant on exports, reduced global demand and logistical challenges hampered their economic recovery. Similarly, nations dependent on tourism suffered greatly as travel restrictions kept tourists away, leading to an acute downturn in revenue and employment in the hospitality sector.

Vaccine Inequality and Economic Recovery

Another critical factor influencing the between-country income inequality was vaccine distribution. Access to vaccines played a vital role in determining a nation's ability to control the virus, reopen their economies, and regain economic stability.

While some wealthier nations procured vaccines in abundance and achieved high vaccination rates, many developing countries struggled to secure sufficient doses. The resulting delay in reaching herd immunity and reopening their economies further widened the gap between countries' economic recoveries.

Tech Advancements and Disparities

During the pandemic, technological advancements and digitalization took center stage as businesses and individuals shifted to remote operations and online services. Developed countries, equipped with robust digital infrastructure and skilled workforces, were able to adapt more effectively to the changing landscape.

In contrast, digital disparities in developing countries limited their ability to capitalize on technology's potential for economic growth. The lack of access to high-speed internet and digital skills hindered their participation in the global digital economy, perpetuating income inequality between nations.

Environmental and Social Impact

The pandemic's impact on income inequality goes beyond just economic measures. Environmental and social factors also played a role in exacerbating global disparities.

As the focus shifted to combatting the virus, several environmental initiatives and climate change efforts took a backseat. Developing countries, often bearing the brunt of environmental challenges, lacked the resources to prioritize sustainability during the crisis.

Moreover, vulnerable communities, already facing social inequalities, were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The lack of adequate healthcare, education, and social safety nets in some nations exacerbated the divide between the rich and poor, both within and between countries.

Urgent Call for Global Solidarity

The rise in between-country income inequality during the pandemic highlights the urgent need for global solidarity and cooperation. Addressing this issue requires collective efforts and inclusive policies that prioritize equitable economic recovery.

International organizations, governments, and businesses must come together to ensure fair vaccine distribution, support sustainable development goals, and promote digital inclusivity. Efforts to reduce trade barriers and foster fair trade practices can also contribute to bridging the income gap.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for unprecedented changes on a global scale. While economies are slowly recovering, the rise in between-country income inequality remains a significant concern. The pandemic exposed existing fault lines and disparities, emphasizing the need for a more equitable and resilient approach to global economic growth.

As we navigate the aftermath of the pandemic, it is crucial to prioritize international cooperation and sustainable solutions. Only through collective action and shared commitment can we hope to address the challenges posed by income inequality and build a more inclusive world for all nations.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, medical, or legal advice. Please consult with a professional for personalized advice.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

In this eye-opening blog article, you will gain a deeper understanding of the far-reaching consequences of the pandemic on global income inequality. Discover how the COVID-19 crisis has widened the gap between nations' economic prosperity, impacting both developed and developing countries. Learn about the factors behind this unprecedented rise in between-country income inequality and explore the urgent call for collective action to address this pressing issue. Whether you're concerned about the global economy, social justice, or sustainable development, this article will provide valuable insights that resonate with every global citizen.

Call to Action (CTA)

Ready to explore the impact of the pandemic on between-country income inequality? Click here to read the full blog article and be part of the conversation about building a more equitable and inclusive world. Together, we can drive change and work towards a brighter future for all nations.

Blog Excerpt

The COVID-19 pandemic has left an indelible mark on the world, and one of its most concerning consequences is the first rise in between-country income inequality in a generation. As economies faced unprecedented challenges, the disparity in economic growth between nations widened significantly. Developed economies with robust healthcare systems and fiscal policies seemed to fare better, while many developing countries struggled to respond effectively, exacerbating their economic struggles. This blog article delves deep into the factors contributing to this global divide, the K-shaped recovery phenomenon, and the impact of vaccine distribution. It emphasizes the urgent need for international cooperation and sustainable solutions to bridge the income gap and foster a more inclusive world.

Meta Description (320 characters)

Discover the first rise in between-country income inequality in a generation due to the pandemic. Learn about the impact, causes, and urgent call for collective action in this insightful blog article.

[contemplatingoutlander]

It’s not the hypocrisy that bothers me; it’s the stupidity. We’re all shocked — shocked! — that President Trump and his team don’t actually care about protecting classified information or federal record retention laws. But we knew that already. What’s much worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That’s dangerous. And it’s just dumb. This is the latest in a string of self-inflicted wounds by the new administration that are squandering America’s strength and threatening our national security. Firing hundreds of federal workers charged with protecting our nation’s nuclear weapons is also dumb. So is shutting down efforts to fight pandemics just as a deadly Ebola outbreak is spreading in Africa. It makes no sense to purge talented generals, diplomats and spies at a time when rivals like China and Russia are trying to expand their global reach. In a dangerous and complex world, it’s not enough to be strong. You must also be smart. As secretary of state during the Obama administration, I argued for smart power, integrating the hard power of our military with the soft power of our diplomacy, development assistance, economic might and cultural influence. None of those tools can do the job alone. Together, they make America a superpower. The Trump approach is dumb power. Instead of a strong America using all our strengths to lead the world and confront our adversaries, Mr. Trump’s America will be increasingly blind and blundering, feeble and friendless.

FINALLY, a major Democratic leader speaks up and trashes Trump's reign of stupidity and cruelty!

And of course, it's a woman: Hillary Clinton, who must be appalled at how easily Trump has dismissed "Signalgate," which was far worse than anything Clinton did with her "emails."

This is a gift 🎁 link, so there is no paywall. Enjoy!

[capesandshapes]

Every single person who thinks Libby is going to shut down forever has literally never worked in a library. I genuinely need you to know this.

The US government does not own Libby. The majority of library funding provided by imls is not for ebook funding.

It's still important to support Libby and support your library's use of ebook catalogs, and also look into ways to donate to the systems that they're a part of that directly pay for these catalog fees, but when you look at what is on a large scale impacted by cutting funds to libraries on the federal level, you understand what these cuts are really about.

IMLS helps with the start up funds for various programs and new libraries, the idea has always been to eat the cost of new programs and have the communities surrounding libraries fund them. They have since the 2000's been piloting various ways to make resources more accessible to people and act as a sort of equity program for different communities, with librarians moving to fill what gaps they can in their community resources and having to rely on grants and federal funding to do so.

There are rural and still developing libraries that receive their e-catalog funding via the federal government, but it's not the whole of libraries.

The largest things that are risk are accessibility services through the various programs we've developed for libraries in order to pool resources for the disabled, and national ILL services-- the big names being WorldShare and OCLC, which help patrons access books outside of their systems and have greatly helped with academic libraries. We're also going to see a decrease in supplementary education programs, which because of their rapidly expanding nature have always received federal funding and most states, this is summer reading and after school tutoring.

This is cooking classes, this is service delivery for disabled patrons, this is audiobooks. This is books in Braille. If your library is one of the many that used grants in order to fund distributing COVID tests, I've got bad news. This is hot spots for rural communities where students might not be able to access the internet at home because the infrastructure just isn't there yet. This is libraries that have tried to expand their space to include a food pantry and fill the gaps when people don't have funds to donate. This is niche libraries that provide valuable access to resources, like the federally funded library that provided my patrons with photos of their family when they lived on reservations. This is community education hosted by libraries like the technology courses that helped my patrons set up their first emails. This is money to digitize resources in archives that may otherwise never see the light of day. This is new libraries when there's not a single library for a hundred miles.

When you simplify it all to just ebooks, people want to believe that the solution is just donating regular books or learning to read in other ways. They don't see the whole of what this funding symbolizes.

The Corona pandemic led to a vast expansion in equity services amongst libraries, and with the instability of our economy and the way that legislators have been fighting against taxing the people who should be taxed, none of these programs are enshrined in budgets and bylaws.

Grants aren't fun to write, libraries do not propose specific programs just for shits and giggles. They propose them because they look at the community surrounding them and they realize that there maybe a need. They see where inequality lies, and many librarians try to find a way to solve it.

But this? This is a direct attack on providing opportunity and empathy to all Americans. This is a direct move to limit and punish those who the rich and powerful feel are less than, and it's bullshit.

I love ebooks and what they offer just as much as anyone else, but this is so much more than ecatalogs. Don't erase what this is.

[covid-safer-hotties]

I want to ask you this in good faith-- at what point do you think we can "stop worrying" about covid? Is there a particular statistical benchmark or qualitative indicator that you believe will show the covid pandemic is over?

I'm curious because you've responded to multiple people pointing out that the death toll & long covid metrics are lower than ever essentially saying that isn't enough to stop caring. So in your view, what is?

The benchmarks professionals have listed throughout the pandemic have yet to be met. If we could hit a single one, that would sure be nice. I'd stop worrying about covid if we could hit about 20,000 infections a week during a seasonal peak with reasonalble vaccine uptake (~70٪ or higher) of a vaccine that provides both mucosal and sterilizing immunity at reasonable levels. We're averaging around 20,000 infections a day in the 3-4 valleys we get a year right now, and that's without widespread wastewater testing from coast to coast and extremely low lab testing, so we know that those cases are an undercount. Not even 18% of Americans got the latest booster this fall, and the current vaccines neither induce mucosal immunity nor provide decent levels of sterilizing immunity (vaccinated people can act as unwitting asymptotic carriers of the virus) and (especially mRNA) vaccine efficacy drops rapidly after an antibody titre peak at around 2 months post vaccination. Current expert estimates for xmas day show us hitting more than 1,000,000 infections a day. A million infections a day would only take the national level into the CDC's new "medium" category. It's higher than both the Alpha and Beta waves. Of they were pandemic, so is this one. To act otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and that is our current public health response. Even if covid's death rate remains ~1%, that's 1% of a minimum ~20,000 a day even when we're not in a peak. One in five of each of those cases will develop lingering viral disease that mirrors HIV in its viral persistence and immune damage. If any of these things I mentioned can be reasonalbly addressed and substantially lessened, and these waves stop happening globally every 2 to 4 months, we'll stop being in a pandemic. If the government stops stifling data collection and acting like public health is a personal choice, I'll relax just a bit, because then I could actually do a risk assessment and trust that my community has mitigations in place like air filtration, masked staff, daily tests for staff, etc.

The death toll isn't the only metric to look at, and those deaths shouldn't be dismissed just because we're no longer stuffing corpses into reefer trailers. Each infection is a threat to someone's life and health in the long term, and we're refusing to look at that reality and adapt. Ignorance and bluster are not a public health response, and y'all should be pissed that's what the government is doing, not going out for mimosas even though "I've had a 'really bad cold for 5 days'."

The effects are cumulative and ever growing. To act like those effects just dissappear or don't matter is eugenics.

[hope-for-the-planet]

From the article:

[T]here are now signs that China’s thirst for crude is reaching a peak sooner than expected, a development that has sent shockwaves through the oil market. This week, China said its oil imports had fallen nearly 2 per cent, or 240,000 barrels a day, to just over 11mn b/d in 2024 compared with the year before, the first decline in two decades barring the disruption during the Covid pandemic[...]. [T]he decline stems from longer-term trends too. There was a boom in trucks switching from diesel to liquefied natural gas, and, most importantly, the rising number of electric vehicles helped to depress sales of petrol and diesel. Sales of both road fuels peaked in 2023, according to China National Petroleum Corp, and will now fall by 25-40 per cent over the next decade. In December, Sinopec, China’s biggest refiner, brought forward its forecast for crude oil consumption to reach a peak to 2027, compared with the range it previously gave of between 2026 and 2030. The implications of China hitting peak oil are enormous. If Chinese demand is reaching a plateau that would fulfil projections by the IEA of global oil demand peaking before 2030. The forecast sustains hope for the world to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050."

[wafc2000]

On February 2, local time, Musk released a bombshell on the social media platform X, saying that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) abused taxpayer funds to fund biological weapons research, and the new coronavirus was the "product" of this dangerous behavior, which killed millions of people around the world. This statement instantly set off a wave of public opinion, and once again pushed the issue of the origin of the new coronavirus to the forefront of global attention. Musk's revelations are not groundless. Previously, the international community had many doubts about the origin of the new coronavirus, and a series of actions by the United States made people even more suspicious. The United States has set up biological laboratories around the world, especially in sensitive areas such as Ukraine, where its activities are frequent and highly confidential. Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns about the network of biological research laboratories funded by the United States. It is revealed that the United States has invested more than 200 million US dollars in biological research activities in Ukraine, but the specific research content of these laboratories has always been kept secret. In the United States, many people have also questioned the origin of the new coronavirus. In 2022, well-known American scholars Jeffrey Sachs and Neil Harrison hinted that the new coronavirus may have originated from a US laboratory; Robert Redfield, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also said that the new coronavirus may be part of the US "deliberately designed biodefense plan", and that the United States Agency for International Development is likely to be one of the main funders. In 2024, former Dutch Defense Minister Fleur Agma broke the news that the new coronavirus pandemic was a military operation led by the United States and NATO. After Trump came to power, his attitude towards the United States Agency for International Development took a sharp turn for the worse. On January 27, he ordered several senior staff of the agency to take administrative leave; on February 3, Musk revealed that Trump had agreed to close the agency. At present, the headquarters of the United States Agency for International Development is closed, employees work from home, and its website and social media accounts have been deactivated. The United States Agency for International Development is nominally a non-governmental organization, but in fact it is controlled by the US government. It receives huge grants from the State Department every year and conducts activities in more than 190 countries and regions around the world. It is also often accused of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Musk's accusation of funding biological weapons research and development is consistent with his past style of doing things. Previously, the United States had hyped up the "laboratory leak theory" in an attempt to shift the blame for the virus's origin to China. Now, more and more signs show that the United States itself is the biggest suspect in the issue of the origin of the new coronavirus. Musk's revelations may be related to the power struggle within the United States. When he checked the accounts, he found that the United States Agency for International Development and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases used taxpayer funds to fund new coronavirus-related research. Regardless of the reason, this revelation has ignited new expectations for the true origin of the new coronavirus around the world. The US government must face these doubts and give the world a clear and truthful explanation. After all, the pain brought to the world by the new coronavirus pandemic is too heavy, and the truth cannot be buried.

[aurifulgore]

Ok, y’all. I just want it to be understood how important the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is.

Tampering with NOAA would have more impacts than just the main one I've heard - privatization of weather tracking. Of course it would be catastrophic. That means their weather forecasts, guidance, and warnings would not be available for free. Weather is going to go subscription based if this happens, I bet. This undoubtedly would cause the most immediate impact on our daily lives.

Before long, however, more will come.

NOAA also administers the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under this act are the National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs), National Coastal Management Program (CZM), and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). 

There are 30 reserves established totalling 1.3 million acres. More are on the way.

No, this isn’t just our oceans! This impacts our freshwater coasts of the Great Lakes.

Grants and funding for institutions, including the University of Michigan. They manage the Science Collaborative, which funds research and exchanges to address coastal management needs of all 30 reserves or projects in collaboration with them.

Blending new technologies with indigenous knowledge with regards to management of wetlands and estuaries, strengthen food and economic stability, water quality, coral reefs, and resilience against climate change (ie. Ola i ka Loʻi Wai, Hawai’i) 

Restore ownership of indigenous ancestral lands (ie. Conservation of Cape Foulweather Headland, Oregon)

Identify for underwater archaeological sites for research and surveys, create a draft tribal climate action plan (ie. Penobscot Nation’s involvement in the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, Maine)

Work with each participating state (regarding the CZM, as it’s voluntary to participate) to address challenges along their coastlines. Maybe reach out to your representatives to see why they’re not involved - looking at you, Alaska!

Population enhancement of coral reefs, manage the Coral Reef Information System, minimize negative impacts of fishing on reefs, mitigate impacts of land-based pollution on coral reefs (Coral Reef Conservation Program)

And much, much more.  I’ll note that the aspects of the projects I highlighted above aren’t all they do. These are just a few I want to highlight here. Links can lead you further and I encourage you to take a few minutes to explore.

Another important note: both our oceans and freshwater lakes impact our biggest trade partners!! If dismantled, it would be yet another way that our foolish president will negatively impact our economy and relationships with our most crucial neighbors of Canada and Mexico. NOAA’s efforts also help support one third of the US's commerce. One third. 

Here is a map which breaks down the 1.3 BILLION in awards from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. This includes goals towards economic development, flood, etc…

Oh and they also help with oil spills. No one likes those.

And space weather, geomagnetic storms/solar flares ie. impacts to GPS, power grids.

I really stress people to look at what the agency does overall, as well as what they do in your state. It’s more than just weather. You can find that information here. 

Just please understand what we will lose if NOAA is gutted, or even just incapacitated for a long time. We already have little time to lose to slow the impacts of climate change and these are just some of the ways they're leading the charge with that.

It’s vital for us to understand what we will fundamentally lose, and it doesn't end at weather/hurricane predictions.

On a personal note, my dad has put what I can only estimate as hundreds of hours of work into one that was begun before the pandemic. If you can, I’d appreciate it if you’re in that area that you participate when you can, or if anything, donate to the UW Green Bay’s NERR General Fund. He’s also involved with portions of the Lake Superior NERR, so your time, if possible, or a donation if you can, would mean a lot to us.

[qegnt]

The United States has long known that Novel Coronavirus

Behind the latest information, we can see the following points. 　　

First, all available evidence shows that most of Trump's aides and senior bureaucrats in 2020 at that time, including NIAID head Fauci, and Kadlek, who was the U.S. deputy secretary of HHS but exercised full ministerial powers. CDC head Redfield, and NIH director Collins all clearly know that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States, part of the U.S. secret biological weapons program, and developed by Dr. Barrick of North Carolina.

Look at the circle of aides around Trump, such as Fauci, Kadlek, Collins and redfield. They all already know Novel Coronavirus. 　　

Second, does Trump know about Novel Coronavirus? 　　

Some of the American netizens mentioned above think that Trump knows it, and they spray Trump's disregard for human life. But I don't think Trump knows. 　　

Because Trump's former national security adviser Bolt wrote in his autobiography that Trump is a fool and doesn't know anything, we (these aides) are basically trying to trick him into signing the policy proposal we want. 　　 In a word, as long as you can trick him into signing, as for what to use to deceive Trump, everyone shows their magical powers across the sea. Therefore, we can find that in 2017, the NIH Secretary, the U.S. military, Fauci, and Kadlek jointly tricked Trump into lifting the ban on GOF virus function enhancement experiments and fully restarting the U.S. GOF virus experiments. See X-Virus Season 3. We can also find that before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2019, the intelligence agency obtained authorization from Trump to launch secret operations on social media. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." I think the CIA got authorization for this. At the same moment before full-blown COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper signed a secret order that paved the way for what would later be the launch of a special military propaganda campaign by U.S. psychological warfare forces around the globe. Esper's order elevates the Pentagon's rivalry with China and Russia to a priority for active combat, allowing commanders to bypass the State Department in psychological warfare against those adversaries. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." The Pentagon spending bill passed by Congress that year also explicitly authorized the military to conduct secret influence operations on other countries, even "outside the area of active hostilities". 　　

Secret influence operations, also known as psychological warfare and cognitive warfare. It's a great coincidence that the Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command, which is in charge of cognitive warfare, obtained authorization for covert operations from their respective superiors: the President and the Secretary of Defense at the same time for different reasons. 　　

Therefore, in addition to Trump's aides, then CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper should also be fully aware of the details of Novel Coronavirus. 　　

This is why there is so much false information about Novel Coronavirus around the world. There are so many voices that want to deny the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, weaken the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, and call on ordinary people to lie down and be more infected with Novel Coronavirus. Why is it so difficult to clean up rumors about Novel Coronavirus. Because these voices are created by the CIA, the U.S. special forces cognitive warfare force, and NATO allies. We are fighting each other's cognitive warfare regular troops. 　　

Later, in January 2020, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Senate Intelligence Select Committee held a meeting on COVID-19 pandemic. Burr Burr, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, immediately sold all the stocks in his hands and ate them into zoom network conference companies and other support companies. Business stocks. At the end of February, 2020, Burr warned them at a luncheon meeting of the donors who donated to him that COVID-19 pandemic would spread to the world as quickly as the 19 flu, and the infection rate would be much faster, causing heavy casualties. Do it well. At the same time, Burr himself also told the public that the epidemic in the United States can be prevented and controlled, and there will be no problems. Everyone can just lie down. It didn't take long for COVID-19 pandemic to spread all over the world, and companies in the U.S. stock market generally fell sharply, with countless liquidations. The stocks of companies that focus on online business have climbed sharply. Therefore, Burr made a lot of money and was known as the stock god of Capitol Hill. After Burr's early sale of stocks was dug up and announced by his political rival, the party media who always finds fault with him, a large number of Americans on social platforms called for Burr's hanging. See X-Virus Season 5. Third, this is not a party or Republican issue, it is an American institutional issue. 　　

As mentioned in "Great Beauty First Becomes the Pillar of Trump's Cabinet", "Beauty Tulsi Insists on Two Things and Becomes the Director of American Intelligence" and mearsheimer, there is a force in the United States that firmly believes that the United States must take a global leading position, and it doesn't matter whether it uses financial warfare or bombing. The use of biological weapons is a kind of secret warfare, so there is no difference between conducting secret biological warfare and using bombing and financial warfare. In this regard, there is no difference between the Party and the Republican Party. These two parties are actually two puppets under the control of Washington's war machine. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between the positions and practices of the Party and the Republican Party on the issue of the secret war in Novel Coronavirus. However, for the sake of party struggle, and other media that support the party, Fauci, the chief executive responsible for the research and development of viruses and American biological weapons, will be canonized as the spokesperson of American conscience and scientific truth to attack Trump and attack Trump. Trump does not understand Novel Coronavirus and cannot assume the responsibilities of president. Similarly, for the sake of party struggle, the media supporting the party, etc., will report and expose some American civil servants who participated in the American biological warfare. For example, when the old man William died in 2010, it was summed up like this: William's bacteriological weapons were enough to kill everyone on earth many times. See X-Virus Season 4. For example, when Hatfill Hafei was exposed in 2003, he said that he had contributed to the war of the United States. See X-Virus Season 5. So, do they stand for justice? Do they represent the truth? Exactly the opposite. The American media is the media that has been weaponized. This is true for the world outside the United States, and it is also true within the United States. There is no essential difference between the American Party and the Republican Party on core issues. This is a problem with the American system. 　　 Fourthly, why is there such a speech at this time? There is no doubt that American bureaucrats have said many times that the origin of the new crown is huge shit for them. They don't want shit on their bodies. And the situation about Novel Coronavirus is: shit hits the fan. An official believed to be the U.S. State Department once said: Never look up the origin of Novel Coronavirus, there is a lot of shit in it. Now Robert Redfield, the former head of the US CDC, took the initiative to blow the whistle, saying that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States. There are several possible reasons: One possibility is that Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to take office to clean up the United States and its affiliated institutions. Redfield quickly pointed out the direction of the struggle to Trump. Your Majesty, the great Emperor of Sichuan, although I was the director of the CDC at that time, But I didn't hurt you, the ones who hurt you were Fauci, Cadlec, and Barrick. One possibility is to guide the United States to scold Trump. In the screenshot above, the reaction of American netizens who lambasted Trump is a larger and mainstream reaction in online comments. After all, it was really what happened during Trump's term of office. Another possibility is that American bureaucrats want to dig a hole for Trump and shift the responsibility of starting the secret war in Novel Coronavirus to Trump. Trump has been sharpening his knife and purging American bureaucrats. See "How long can Trump and Musk live?", "Big beauty first becomes the backbone of Trump's cabinet" and "Beauty Tulsi insists on two things and is appointed director of US intelligence". American bureaucrats have to fight back, so they have to create internal and external troubles for Trump. Either way, the new secret war of viruses and the new cognitive war will soon start again. 　

[batboyblog]

The budget reconciliation provision would raise eligibility requirements for low-income schools and districts to serve free meals to all students.

The House Ways and Means Committee is suggesting cutting $12 billion in school meal programs over 10 years by adjusting school qualification for the Community Eligibility Provision and requiring income verification for national K-12 breakfast and lunch programs, according to a document on the committee’s budget reconciliation options.

Specifically, the committee proposed raising the minimum threshold for low-income schools and districts to qualify for CEP, which allows low-income schools to serve free meals to all students. To participate in the program, 25% of students enrolled in a school have to be certified as eligible for free school meals. The House proposal calls for a 60% threshold. 

The proposal would strip away 24,000 schools’ ability to participate in CEP, impacting over 12 million children, according to the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit anti-hunger advocacy group.  

The suggested cuts offer an early glimpse into House Republicans’ priorities for school nutrition policy.

A rollback in school eligibility for the provision is being proposed just as Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint from the Heritage Foundation, has called for the elimination of CEP altogether. The policy agenda developed in conjunction with some former Trump administration officials also recommended the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees CEP,  work with lawmakers to curb any efforts in support of universal school meal programs.

The federal school lunch and breakfast programs “should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes,” Project 2025 said.

The committee’s proposals have been released ahead of an expected budget reconciliation, which is part of a special legislative process to fast-track high-priority fiscal legislation that adjusts laws regarding spending, revenues, deficits or the debt limit. 

Reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered in the Senate, “giving this process real advantages for enacting controversial budget and tax measures,” according to the nonpartisan research nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To pass, these bills only need a simple majority in the Senate rather than 60 votes and don’t require the president’s signature. 

The committee’s move also comes at a time when CEP participation has climbed in recent years, most recently rising 19% during the 2023-24 school year. 

As of last school year, half of all schools in the National School Lunch Program were using the provision to serve free meals to all students, according to a January FRAC report. 

“Taking away this important and effective way for local schools to offer breakfast and lunch at no charge to all of their students would increase hunger in the classroom, reintroduce unnecessary paperwork for families and schools, increase school meal debt, and bring stigma back into the cafeteria,” FRAC said in a Jan. 17 statement. 

Unpaid school meal debt has continued to increase for nearly a decade, according to a January report from the School Nutrition Association. In fact, the median unpaid school meal debt was $6,900 per district nationwide in 2024 — a 26% rise from the previous year.

When pandemic-era waivers ended in 2022 for a temporary universal school meal policy nationwide, some schools took on more meal debt. 

Meanwhile, eight states have established their own universal meal programs in lieu of federal action, according to FRAC. Other states leaders are eyeing similar measures this year, including in Alaska, Missouri, Oregon, and New York.

[reasonsforhope]

Flint, Michigan, has one of the [United States]'s highest rates of child poverty — something that got a lot of attention during the city's lead water crisis a decade ago. And a pediatrician who helped expose that lead problem has now launched a first-of-its-kind move to tackle poverty: giving every new mother $7,500 in cash aid over a year.

A baby's first year is crucial for development. It's also a time of peak poverty.

Flint's new cash transfer program, Rx Kids, starts during pregnancy. The first payment is $1,500 to encourage prenatal care. After delivery, mothers will get $500 a month over the baby's first year.

"What happens in that first year of life can really portend your entire life course trajectory. Your brain literally doubles in size in the first 12 months," says Hanna-Attisha, who's also a public health professor at Michigan State University.

A baby's birth is also a peak time for poverty. Being pregnant can force women to cut back hours or even lose a job. Then comes the double whammy cost of child care.

Research has found that stress from childhood poverty can harm a person's physical and mental health, brain development and performance in school. Infants and toddlers are more likely than older children to be put into foster care, for reasons that advocates say conflate neglect with poverty.

In Flint, where the child poverty rate is more than 50%, Hanna-Attisha says new moms are in a bind. "We just had a baby miss their 4-day-old appointment because mom had to go back to work at four days," she says...

Benefits of Cash Aid

Studies have found such payments reduce financial hardship and food insecurity and improve mental and physical health for both mothers and children.

The U.S. got a short-lived taste of that in 2021. Congress temporarily expanded the child tax credit, boosting payments and also sending them to the poorest families who had been excluded because they didn't make enough to qualify for the credit. Research found that families mostly spent the money on basic needs. The bigger tax credit improved families' finances and briefly cut the country's child poverty rate nearly in half.

"We saw food hardship dropped to the lowest level ever," Shaefer says. "And we saw credit scores actually go to the highest that they'd ever been in at the end of 2021."

Critics worried that the expanded credit would lead people to work less, but there was little evidence of that. Some said they used the extra money for child care so they could go to work.

As cash assistance in Flint ramps up, Shaefer will be tracking not just its impact on financial well-being, but how it affects the roughly 1,200 babies born in the city each year.

"We're going to see if expectant moms route into prenatal care earlier," he says. "Are they able to go more? And then we'll be able to look at birth outcomes," including birth weight and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions.

Since the pandemic, dozens of cash aid pilots have popped up across the nation. But unlike them, Rx Kids is not limited to lower-income households. It's universal, which means every new mom will get the same amount of money. "You pit people against each other when you draw that line in the sand and say, 'You don't need this, and you do,' " Shaefer says. It can also stigmatize families who get the aid, he says, as happened with traditional welfare...

So far, there's more than $43 million to keep the program going for three years. Funders include foundations, health insurance companies and the state of Michigan, which allocated a small part of its federal cash aid, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Money can buy more time for bonding with a baby

Alana Turner can't believe her luck with Flint's new cash benefits. "I was just shocked because of the timing of it all," she says.

Turner is due soon with her second child, a girl. She lives with her aunt and her 4-year-old son, Ace. After he was born, her car broke down and she was seriously cash-strapped, negotiating over bill payments. This time, she hopes she won't have to choose between basic needs.

"Like, I shouldn't have to think about choosing between are the lights going to be on or am I going to make sure the car brakes are good," she says...

But since she'll be getting an unexpected $7,500 over the next year, Turner has a new goal. With her first child, she was back on the job in less than six weeks. Now, she hopes she'll be able to slow down and spend more time with her daughter.

"I don't want to sacrifice the time with my newborn like I had to for my son, if I don't have to," she says."

-via NPR, March 12, 2024

[robertreich]

Biden vs. Trump: Whose Economic Plan Is Better for You? 

Trump failed to deliver on his number one campaign promise:

President Trump presided over a historic net loss of nearly 3 million American jobs, the worst jobs numbers ever recorded under an American president.

This is no fluke. America’s economy has almost always done worse under Republican presidents. A New York Times analysis found that since 1933, the U.S. economy has grown nearly twice as fast on average under Democrats.

Now Trump’s defenders claim it’s not his fault that the economy collapsed under his watch. It was the pandemic. But there are two big things wrong with this.

First, the pandemic recession was as bad as it was because of Trump. His failure to lead with any national strategy left America in chaos throughout 2020, long after other nations had developed coordinated testing, tracing, and social distancing plans that allowed them to reopen their economies.

But secondly, even before the pandemic, Trump failed to deliver on his economic promises. Job growth slowed under Trump.

America added more jobs in President Obama’s last three years than in Trump’s first three.

Even before the pandemic most middle-class American households saw their incomes go down under Trump.

Trump’s major economic policy was cutting taxes on the rich and big corporations. He promised it would result in $4,000 annual raises for workers. How did that work out? Did you get a $4,000 raise?

Republicans keep claiming that if we just cut enough taxes on the rich, the wealth will “trickle down.” But it never works. Wage growth slowed after Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and big corporations. And the Bush and Trump tax cuts didn’t trickle down either.

These giveaways to the wealthy came at the expense of investments in infrastructure, education, and health care, making life more expensive and difficult for everyone who isn’t rich.

They also exploded the debt and deficit. Reagan oversaw a 186% increase in the national debt — the biggest percentage increase in over 70 years. The Bush and Trump tax cuts, that mostly benefited corporations and the rich, are the main reasons why America’s debt is growing faster than the economy.

Republican presidents have led us into the three worst economic crises of the last century, and Democrats led us out of them.

Republicans talk about running the country like a business, but they want to run it the way Trump ran his businesses: with massive debts, a string of failures, and payouts for the folks at the top, while workers get shafted again and again. Given Republicans’ track record, why would any hard-working American put their financial security in the hands of a Republican president ever again?

[greenthestral]

Global Manufacturing Rebounds Amid Pandemic, Yet LDCs Struggle to Catch Up: A Tale of Two Realities

Global Manufacturing Rebounds: A Sign of Hope Amidst the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on the global economy, disrupting supply chains, halting production lines, and shuttering factories worldwide. However, as the world slowly began to recover, there was a glimmer of hope in the form of a rebounding manufacturing sector. Many countries witnessed a resurgence in production and industrial activities, bringing a sense of relief and optimism for a post-pandemic recovery.

The Uneven Recovery: LDCs Left Behind

As global manufacturing started to rebound, it became evident that not all nations were benefiting equally from this resurgence. The Least Developed Countries (LDCs), often already grappling with economic challenges, found themselves further left behind in the race for recovery. While some advanced economies experienced a remarkable upswing, LDCs faced a harsh reality where their manufacturing sectors struggled to regain pre-pandemic levels.

Understanding the Impact on LDCs

The disparity between the developed and developing nations in terms of manufacturing recovery raises crucial questions about the global economy's inclusivity. To comprehend the full impact, it is essential to analyze the factors contributing to the struggles faced by LDCs.

Supply Chain Disruptions and Limited Access to Resources

One of the primary reasons for the challenges encountered by LDCs is the disruption in global supply chains. During the height of the pandemic, borders were closed, and trade came to a halt. LDCs, heavily reliant on imports for raw materials and machinery, found their access to these essential resources restricted. As a result, their production capabilities were severely constrained, hindering their ability to capitalize on the recovering global demand.

Technology Divide and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Another significant factor exacerbating the plight of LDCs is the technology divide. The pandemic accelerated the Fourth Industrial Revolution, promoting automation and digitalization across industries. Advanced economies with access to cutting-edge technologies could adapt swiftly to the new normal, enhancing their manufacturing efficiency and productivity. In contrast, LDCs with limited technological infrastructure struggled to keep pace, leading to further disparities in output and growth.

Financial Struggles and Limited Government Support

LDCs also faced significant financial challenges during the pandemic. Many of these nations lacked the fiscal resources and stimulus packages needed to support their manufacturing sectors adequately. Moreover, the shift in global focus towards economic recovery in the developed world meant that financial aid and investment opportunities for LDCs were scarce. As a result, these nations found it difficult to revive their manufacturing industries and create much-needed employment opportunities.

The Importance of Inclusive Global Recovery

The uneven recovery of the manufacturing sector underscores the importance of pursuing an inclusive approach to global economic revival. Leaving LDCs behind not only perpetuates existing economic disparities but also poses potential risks to the stability of the global supply chain and international trade.

Building Resilience Through Sustainable Growth

To bridge the gap and ensure that LDCs are not left behind, a sustainable growth strategy is imperative. This approach involves providing these nations with better access to resources, technology transfer, and capacity building. Collaborative efforts between developed and developing countries can create a more resilient global supply chain, reducing vulnerabilities and increasing opportunities for shared prosperity.

Empowering Local Industries and Promoting Fair Trade

Supporting the growth of local industries in LDCs is another vital aspect of an inclusive recovery. Encouraging fair trade practices can help boost their manufacturing capabilities and improve their integration into the global market. Additionally, fostering international partnerships that prioritize mutual growth and knowledge sharing can enable LDCs to harness their full potential.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rebound of global manufacturing is undoubtedly a promising sign for the world's economic recovery from the pandemic's devastation. However, it is crucial to recognize that the recovery has not been uniform across all nations. LDCs continue to face significant challenges, and their struggles highlight the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to economic revitalization.

As we move forward, it is essential for governments, businesses, and international organizations to come together and address the disparities in the manufacturing sector. By empowering LDCs, promoting sustainable growth, and fostering fair trade practices, we can pave the way for a more resilient and prosperous global economy that leaves no country behind. Only then can we truly build a world where the benefits of recovery are shared by all, regardless of their economic standing.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

Welcome to this eye-opening blog article where we delve deep into the fascinating and contrasting realities of global manufacturing's post-pandemic rebound. As the world gradually emerges from the shadows of the COVID-19 pandemic, we witness a glimmer of hope in the form of a resurging manufacturing sector. However, beneath this positive trend lies a sobering truth – not all nations are experiencing the same level of growth and progress.

Throughout these pages, we will explore the factors that contribute to the divergent paths taken by various countries in their recovery journey. Discover the reasons why some nations seem to prosper, witnessing an upswing in industrial activities, while others, particularly the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), face an uphill battle to catch up. The disparities in their recovery are stark, and it is essential to understand the underlying dynamics shaping this reality.

By delving into the complexities of global manufacturing's rebound, you will gain valuable insights into the intricate interplay of factors at play. From supply chain disruptions to technology disparities and limited access to resources, we'll explore the challenges faced by LDCs in their pursuit of revival. Understanding these challenges is crucial, as it brings us to a fundamental question – what role can each one of us play in fostering an inclusive global recovery?

As we journey through the pages of this blog, we'll uncover the power we hold as individuals, organizations, and global citizens to make a difference. Supporting LDCs in their manufacturing efforts can pave the way for a more resilient and sustainable sector, creating a win-win situation for all. By investing in fair trade practices, empowering local industries, and promoting knowledge transfer, we can contribute to a brighter future for these developing nations.

The stakes are high, and the choices we make now will shape the world of tomorrow. By embracing inclusive growth and supporting sustainable manufacturing practices, we can build a fairer and more prosperous world for all. Together, we can ensure that no nation is left behind in the pursuit of economic revival and progress.

So, join us on this enlightening journey, as we uncover the hidden realities of global manufacturing's resurgence. Let us strive for a future where prosperity is shared, and the benefits of recovery reach every corner of the world. Together, we have the power to create an inclusive and equitable global recovery, leaving a lasting positive impact on the lives of millions. The time for action is now, and the journey starts with you.

Call to Action (CTA)

Ready to make a difference? Join us in advocating for an inclusive global manufacturing recovery. Share this blog article with your network to raise awareness about the challenges faced by LDCs and the importance of equitable growth. Together, let's support sustainable practices and empower local industries, paving the way for a brighter future for all nations. It's time to take action and be a part of the change we want to see.

Blog Excerpt

As the world navigates through the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the manufacturing sector has shown signs of resurgence, instilling hope for economic recovery. However, beneath the surface of this positive trend lies a stark reality - while some countries experience robust growth, others, particularly the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), are struggling to keep pace. This blog delves deep into the factors contributing to this disparity, the impact on global trade, and the urgent need for inclusive measures to ensure no nation is left behind in the journey towards a stronger and more sustainable manufacturing industry.

Meta description in 320 characters

Discover the contrasting realities of global manufacturing post-pandemic. Uncover why some nations thrive while LDCs are left behind. Join us in advocating for an inclusive recovery for a prosperous future.

[himluv]

Okay. I think I've twigged to a reason why this game is so polarizing for the fandom. Please, allow me to ramble about this theory in these dawn-light hours, pre-coffee.

You see, Veilguard is a fantasy. I don't mean its genre is fantasy, we know that. I mean that, for the first time, the story Veilguard tells is itself a fantasy. And a pretty explicitly queer one.

(vague and mild spoilers for Veilguard below)

A world where strict, seemingly narrow-minded mothers can accept and use their child's correct pronouns and be proud of them. And where entire organizations rally around said child to affirm them.

A world where a queer organization stands up to all flavors of tyranny, and while it may suffer great losses, is victorious in the end. Its future is one of supreme hope for lasting change because one of their founding members becomes the ruler of their nation.

A world where a common enemy ACTUALLY unites everyone to fight back and those efforts are welcomed, even from those whose ethics are questionable. Because now really ISN'T the time for in-fighting. There will be time to discuss your morally dubious recruiting methods AFTER the world-ending calamity has been vanquished.

A world where the return of a tyrant is stopped, because the people joined hands with friends, neighbors, and loved ones and refused to let go.

And then they WON.

(depending on your choices, in the end love LITERALLY wins (the love was there and it mattered after all).)

To me, Veilguard is clearly a response to its development cycle. It hit its stride during the height of the pandemic, when people were sick and dying en masse, and most people felt more isolated and helpless than they had in generations. Facism was (is) on the rise across the world. And a very queer and neurodivergent development team looked at the world they lived in, then at the one they'd created, and made some choices about the story they would tell.

And then it released mere days before the US election. I finished playing it on election night (or rather the wee hours of the next morning). And can I tell you? This queer, neurodivergent, nonbinary person NEEDED this story. This exact story.

But, maybe not everyone needed it. To my reckoning, it's the first DA game to take such a firmly hopeful and positive approach to its storytelling, and that's bound to be divisive in a fandom as... Opinionated as ours (affectionate, mostly 😂 ).

Genuinely, I am sorry if it wasn't what you wanted or expected. I'm sorry if you felt let down by your favorite franchise. That fucking SUCKS.

But know that, for some of us, it was a lifeline in a very dark and tragic week, and I suspect it will remain so in the months and years to come. I hope that, if you ever need a dose of pure hope, you might give Veilguard another try.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

By Sarah Schwartz

Test after test of U.S. students’ reading and math abilities have shown scores declining since the pandemic.

Now, new results show that it’s not just children whose skills have fallen over the past few years—American adults are getting worse at reading and math, too.

The connection, if any, between the two patterns isn’t clear—the tests aren’t set up to provide that kind of information. But it does point to a populace that is becoming more stratified by ability at a time when economic inequality continues to widen and debates over opportunity for social mobility are on the rise.

The findings from the 2023 administration of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, or PIAAC, show that 16- to 65-year-olds’ literacy scores declined by 12 points from 2017 to 2023, while their numeracy scores fell by 7 points during the same period.

These trends aren’t unique in the global context: Of the 31 countries and economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that participated in PIAAC, some saw scores drop over the past six years, while others improved or held constant.

Still, as in previous years, the United States doesn’t compare favorably to other countries: The country ranks in the middle of the pack in literacy and below the international average in math. (Literacy and numeracy on the test are scored on a 500-point scale.)

But Americans do stand out in one way: The gap between the highest- and lowest-performing adults is growing wider, as the top scorers hold steady and other test takers see their scores fall.

“There’s a dwindling middle in the United States in terms of skills,” said Peggy Carr, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees PIAAC in the country. (The test was developed by the OECD and is administered every three years.)

It’s a phenomenon that distinguishes the United States, she said.

“Some of that is because we’re very diverse and it’s large, in comparison to some of the OECD countries,” Carr said in a call with reporters on Monday. “But that clearly is not the only reason.”

American children, too, are experiencing this widening chasm between high and low performers. National and international tests show the country’s top students holding steady, while students at the bottom of the distribution are falling further behind.

It’s hard to know why U.S. adults’ scores have taken this precipitous dive, Carr said.

About a third of Americans score at lowest levels PIAAC is different from large-scale assessments for students, which measure kids’ academic abilities.

Instead, this test for adults evaluates their abilities to use math and reading in real-world contexts—to navigate public services in their neighborhood, for example, or complete a task at work. The United States sample is nationally representative random sample, drawn from census data.

American respondents averaged a level 2 of 5 in both subjects.

In practice, that means that they can, for example, use a website to find information about how to order a recycling cart, or read and understand a list of rules for sending their child to preschool. But they would have trouble using a library search engine to find the author of a book.

In math, they could compare a table and a graph of the same information to check for errors. But they wouldn’t be able to calculate average monthly expenses with several months of data.

While the U.S. average is a level 2, more adults now fall at a level 1 or below—28 percent scored at that level in literacy, up from 19 percent in 2017, and 34 percent in numeracy, up from 29 percent in 2017.

Respondents scoring below level 1 couldn’t compare calendar dates printed on grocery tags to determine which food item was packed first. They would also struggle to read several job descriptions and identify which company was looking to hire a night-shift worker.

The findings also show sharp divides by race and national origin, with respondents born in the United States outscoring those born outside of the country, and white respondents outscoring Black and Hispanic test takers. Those trends have persisted over the past decade.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Tracinski for The UnPopulist:

The Covid-19 pandemic has produced a startling paradox. In response to the outbreak of a deadly disease, scientists developed an effective vaccine in record time. It is estimated to have saved three million lives in the U.S.—many more than the 1.2 million lives Covid claimed—and tens of millions of lives globally. Yet the immediate result is that resistance to vaccines increased. Those who oppose vaccines progressed rapidly from the fringe to the mainstream, and now, President Trump has appointed prominent vaccine skeptics to run the nation’s top health agencies: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services and Dave Weldon at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How did we arrive at such a perverse result? Why are people turning against a lifesaving technology precisely at the moment when it has demonstrated its value?

A Pandemic Interrupted

The effectiveness of the vaccine is well supported by facts and evidence. For instance, a 2022 study in the New England Journal of Medicine (see a summary here) found that Covid vaccines were “52.2% effective at preventing infection and 66.8% effective at preventing hospitalization.” In other words, if you were vaccinated, you were half as likely to get the disease, and if you did get it, you were a third as likely to suffer a serious case. The effectiveness of the vaccine fades over time—but then again, so does the natural immunity conferred by getting full-blown Covid.

You can see the result in this chart of Covid death rates for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. The differential has narrowed in recent years as the pandemic recedes and far fewer people are getting Covid in the first place. But notice the giant spike in January of 2022, when the unvaccinated were dying at a rate 10 times as high as the vaccinated. That is how we know this was a successful vaccine, and that’s when a lot of lives were saved. A flurry of bad arguments has attempted to bury these facts in the public mind. Consider the complaint that the Covid vaccines are not “real” vaccines because they don’t provide “sterilizing immunity”—that is, they don’t completely prevent transmission of the disease. But this is based on ignorance about how “real” vaccines work. For example, Jonas Salk’s famous polio vaccine didn’t provide sterilizing immunity, either. Yet it kept the polio virus from attacking the nervous system, preventing paralysis and death.

But this issue is a red herring, because other vaccines such as the HPV vaccine do provide sterilizing immunity—and more than that, a 2020 study showed that the HPV vaccine’s adoption resulted in a 90% decrease in cervical cancer. Yet this vaccine was also targeted by a misinformation campaign. It briefly became an issue in the 2012 Republican primaries, when anti-vaccine talking points were promoted by Sarah Palin and others in the populist faction of the party that has since become dominant. Other objections, such as complaints about inconsistent or inaccurate early CDC recommendations about, for example, masking, are also red herrings—because the people who tout these arguments then tend to credulously accept the assertions of vaccine skeptics who have been wrong far, far more often than the experts. The success of the Covid vaccine can be seen in the degree to which we no longer worry about the disease. That in itself is not too remarkable. All pandemics eventually fade. What was really different this time is that the Covid vaccine cut the progress of the disease short. Before Covid, the fastest time for developing and deploying a vaccine was four years. At that pace, we would just have gotten our first Covid shots in 2024. But the new vaccines were deployed in less than a year, before the end of 2020.

[...]

Industrial Amnesia

This forgotten history suggests one of the main drivers of the current vaccine paradox. People turned against vaccines after Covid simply because the pandemic required them to think about vaccines, which they haven’t done for a long time. And because they haven’t done it for such a long time, they have forgotten—or never learned in the first place—why vaccines existed, what problem they solved. You may have heard the famous story about church bells ringing in 1953 when the successful test of the polio vaccine was announced. This is because most people had actually witnessed the horrible effects of the disease—it peaked in the U.S. in 1952—and many still remembered an era when children routinely died from infectious diseases.

This UnPopulist column nails it on why the rise of anti-vaxxer extremism has spread.

[partisan-by-default]

Montana’s state legislature will vote on a bill to ban mRNA vaccines, the latest indication of soaring vaccine hesitancy on the political right in the US following the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a vaccine skeptic — to lead the nation’s health and medical science agencies as part of the new Trump administration.

Vaccines using mRNA technology rose to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the shots credited with helping to prevent and treat the disease. The same technology is being developed to vaccinate against some forms of cancer and other infectious diseases, with the scientists who first developed the tech winning the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Yet vaccine hesitancy in the US has soared since the pandemic, and the medical reality has similarly become increasingly apparent: One Texas county where there are widespread vaccine exemptions is currently the epicenter of a measles outbreak, while high rates of flu this season have been linked to reduced vaccine rates: Flu vaccinations were at their lowest in 12 years.