JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
What is the Significance of the First Union Store at Starbucks?
Brief #132 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
The recent union vote, at a Buffalo, NY Starbucks, represents the first success in the company’s 8000 corporate retail outlets. Workers United is the entity representing the workers and is affiliated with the Service Employees International Union. Another area store failed to vote in a union while a third one had a successful outcome which has been contested by both sides.
Dams Versus Salmon on the Snake River
Brief #130 – Environment Policy
By Timothy T. Loftus, Ph.D.
This past October, the Northwest News Network reported that a coalition of conservation groups, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the State of Oregon reached an agreement with the Biden Administration and federal agencies to pause, until next summer, long-running litigation over the operations of Snake River dams within the Columbia River Basin.
China: Genocide and the Olympics
Brief #137 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
The detention (or internment) camps that are housing the Uyghurs (and several other ethnic minority groups) are essentially prisons. According to NBC News, they reported that a high-level Communist Party official in Xinjiang described, in leaked documents, the security measures of the camps and they more closely align with a prison than a “vocational center”.
The leaked documents mention video surveillance in/around classrooms, dormitories, and even watch towers. The Chinese government has cited worries about extremism and even terrorism from within the Uyghur population as a main driver of these policies.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 6
Brief #30 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The investigation into the January 6 attack on our nation’s capitol is currently well underway; there have been numerous subpoenas issued, thousands of tips collected, and many depositions and interviews conducted.
Inflationary Trends Cut Into Rise in Wages
Brief #131 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Wages are increasing significantly in all sectors. As workers have gradually rejoined the labor force, taking their time even as federal subsidies to unemployment benefits ended, starting wages and service work especially have seen large increases. Wages increased 4.9% between October 2020 and October 2021.
DOI Will Not Stop the Drilling in the Face of Climate Commitments
Brief #129 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
With President Biden’s COP26 climate pledge as backdrop, his administration has been issuing oil leases at a record pace. Biden said that climate change is “the challenge of our collective lifetimes, an existential threat to human existence as we know it. And every day we delay the cost of inaction increases.” His pledge is to cut U.S. emissions by up to 51% over the next nine years. At the end of October, the administration had approved 3,091 new drilling permits on public lands at a rate of 332 per month, outpacing the Trump administration’s 300 permits per month in fiscal years 2018-2020.
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Brief #132 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
Nearly a year ago, the Biden Administration suspended the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aka Remain in Mexico. The policy consisted of a set of rules requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexican border towns while their cases were processed in the US. In April 2021, the Attorney-Generals of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden Administration for suspending MPP and called for an injunction to pause the policy’s termination.
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Brief #130 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
After persistent bickering Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer reached a procedural agreement allowing the Senate to pass an increase in the debt ceiling with a simple majority. This bill passed Thursday and is likely to quickly lead to an increase in the debt ceiling of 2-2.5 trillion dollars, which will cover the government’s debt payments through next year’s election.
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
Brief #178 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade. That case ruled that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The basis of the ruling by the Court was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a “right to privacy” which includes the choice to have an abortion. The case then laid out a balancing test that focused on each of the three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy.
Post-Election Investigations Could Yield Criminal Charges for Trump
Post-Election Investigations Could Yield Criminal Charges for Trump
Elections and Politics Policy Brief # 24 | By: Zack Huffman | August 16, 2021
Header photo taken from: ABC News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Despite the 2020 election results decisively showing a majority of Americans wanted Donald Trump out of office, the former president showed that he was not willing to go down without a fight. And now he may face criminal charges for his post-election shenanigans.
In the weeks following the election, Trump reportedly attempted to pressure Georgia’s attorney general to reverse the results oforthe state, which went blue for the first time since 1996,
Fulton County District Attorney announced that she had opened a criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the results of the election, and award Trump Georgia’s 20 electoral votes.
Trump called Raffensperger on January 2, and urged the secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes” which would have theoretically given Trump the win in the Peach State by 1 vote. The phone call was leaked by the Washington Post.
Days later, Trump spoke before a large crowd in Washington D.C. on January 6, and urged his supporters to “stop the steal” in reference to Congress certifying the election results in favor of Joe Biden, which was taking place at the same time.
“And we fight. We fight like hell,” said Trump, according to a transcript published by the Associated Press. “And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Trump then instructed the crowd to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capital.
That is exactly what his supporters did, before storming the Capital.
Both the phone call to Raffensperger and Trump’s Jan. 6 speech have now potentially left the former president vulnerable to legal action.
Policy Analysis
District Attorney Fani Willis, who serves Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, Georgia, announced on February 10 that her office had opened an investigation into possible election crimes.
“This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” wrote Willis in a series of letters sent to Georgia’s governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general on February 10.
The Washington Post reported, last month, that Willis’ office said that it was preparing to issue subpoenas to individuals who have yet to comply with requests to be interviewed as part of the investigation.
A more recent article from Business Insider noted that as of August 11, Willis was still conducting her investigation, but she was also avoiding publicly speaking about the case.
Meanwhile, Washington D.C. attorney general, Karl Racine is considering criminal charges against Trump for his January 6 speech under the district’s disorderly conduct law.
Photo taken from: ABC News
Racine told MSNBC, in a January interview, that his office was considering charging Trump with a misdameanor. As attorney general of the District Columbia, Racine has limits on what his office can pursue legally, since D.C. is not a state.
The district amended its disorderly conduct law in 2011, to make it a crime to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” The crime is a misdemeanor and carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison, according to Racine’s interview with MSNBC.
The D.C. Attorney General has limited powers to pursue criminal charges, but a spokesperson from Racine’s office told U.S. Resist News that as of mid-August they were still considering whether or not to pursue criminal charges under the disorderly conduct law in relation to the Jan. 6 riot.
Both investigations are still early, and may or may not yield actual charges. But it is likely that Trump could face additional charges depending on what kind of information comes out of recent hearings that the legislature has been conducting into post-election activity.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
Most recently, former acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen told the Senate Judicial Committee that he had to resist Trump’s demands to use the Justice Department to discredit the election results.
Aside from criminal charges, Trump is also facing civil litigation for his role in the January 6 riot.
U.S. representative Eric Swalwell filed a lawsuit against Trump in March, seeking a court order barring Trump from holding future large gatherings in D.C. or state capitals without first providing a seven-day notice.
The lawsuit is similar to one filed by U.S. representative Bennie Thompson against Trump and his allies from the January 6 rally. Thompson’s lawsuits seeks a court order establishing that Trump violated the Ku Klux Klan act, which covers threats made to elected officials.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Associated Press:
Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot
D.A. Willis’ letter announcing her investigation. (obtained through NPR)
MSNBC:
Washington D.C.’s disorderly conduct law
Just Security maintains a webpage that tracks ongoing civil and criminal cases against Donald Trump.
Business Insider:
The longtime prosecutor leading the Georgia investigation into Trump has gone silent
Washington Post:
Federal Task Force Needed To Attack Roots of Public Despair
Federal Task Force Needed To Attack Roots of Public Despair
Social Justice Policy Brief # 22 | By: Katelyn Lewis | August 16, 2021
Header photo taken from: Brookings Institution
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs here
Photo taken from: ABC News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has become a stellar example of how ill-fitted U.S. policy is toward addressing the root causes of despair in society, a Brookings Institution policy analysis suggests, with most policies providing reactive solutions and further impairing economic recovery.
“Despair in American society is a barrier to reviving our labor markets and productivity, jeopardizing well-being, health, longevity, families, and communities – and even national security,” the report says. “The COVID-19 pandemic was a fundamental shock, exacerbating an already … growing problem of despair.”
The report proposes the development of a federal interagency task force, commissioned to coordinate existing and new addiction, despair, and economic recovery efforts “as a critical first step to sustainable economic recovery.”
The task force would also oversee the addition of national well-being statistics to existing annual data on illness; reframe the narrative around mental health to include the positive impacts of well-being on economic growth; and work to connect and expand mental health treatment with hope-building community revival and resilience efforts. Further, the report suggests the task force help to coordinate public–private partnerships focused on creatively improving worker well-being, and to treat despair as a national security issue – especially in its exponential spread through online and physical organizing.
“Without a dedicated and coordinated effort, the large cohort of workers that have simply dropped out of the labor force and have lost hope of having a purposeful existence – among others – will continue to suffer and remain a barrier to a full social and economic recovery,” the analysis says. “This in turn will make it more likely that their children will become the next generation in despair.”
Photo taken from: Brookings Institution
The root causes of despair include, but are not limited to, unemployment, poverty, cultural dislocation, rising health care costs, and feeling of hopelessness. They may present themselves in suicides, addictions, overdoses, and increased mental health issues ranging from depression and anxiety to increased anger and frustrations.
The COVID-19 pandemic not only became a leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020, but it also has led to increases in long-term unemployment and social isolation – both of which initiate and exacerbate poor mental health on the individual and community level.
And, while some policies and programs aim to address these issues, they are few and far between, with no master plan in place to connect the dots, according to the analysis.
“There is no federal level entity to provide financial or logistical support to these bottom-up efforts, nor is there a system that can disseminate relevant information to other communities seeking solutions,” the report says. “While federal agencies – such as the CDC – track mortality trends, no system tracks the underlying causes of these deaths, especially their psychosocial correlates.”
Policy Analysis
The Brookings Institution proposal is thorough in both outlining the depth of and providing solutions for documenting and addressing societal despair in the U.S., but leaves the logistics of setting the interagency up to the higher leadership powers that be.
It envisions an interagency task force connecting with others already in existence, so as not to create another “siloed activity.” The task force would take into account existing, working concepts from community-led efforts and devise paths forward for scaling them to others nationally. It models the interagency National Climate Task Force, using an executive order to bring much-needed attention, resources, and support to tackling the systemic roots of despair.
Photo taken from: Brookings Institution
Photo taken from: Brookings Institution
But left out of the equation are some of the finer details – for example, the process for selecting and scaling initiatives operating “in disconnected siloes which do not lead to generalizable or scalable operations”; the potential costs or funding required to launch it uniformly; or how to remove the political bias that often comes with the issuing of an executive order, even if the problems it addresses are universal.
The paper suggests some of these answers are beyond its purview, but without them, it’s possible this report joins others in setting idealistic goals, but not being taken seriously or noticed by policymakers. In fact, no media outlets have covered the report since its release in July 2021.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Brookings Working Group on Despair and Economic Recovery – Addressing America’s crisis of despair and economic recovery (July 2021) –
Community Initiatives –
https://communityin.org/?doing_wp_cron=1628883540.9932980537414550781250
Smart Growth America:
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/
Trust for America’s Health
Well Being Trust:
A Coup or a Necessary Reset in Tunisia?
A Coup or a Necessary Reset in Tunisia?
Foreign Policy Brief # 126 | By: Avery Roe | August 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: peaknewsonline.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs here
Photo taken from: International Business Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On July 25, 2021, President Kais Saied of Tunisia fired the country’s Prime Minister and suspended Parliament in what he called an emergency situation, giving him total power. Article 80 of the Tunisian Constitution allows the President to take any actions necessary in the event of imminent danger to the country in consultation with the prime minister and parliament. While President Saied did not consult with others in the government, there has been debate on whether or not his actions otherwise fall inside the law. He has promised to appoint a new government within 30 days. In the weeks since he acted, there has been considerable debate as to what happened and what will come next as the country remains in limbo.
Since Tunisia first transitioned to democracy in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2011, the results haven’t been what people were hoping for. The economy has been overdependent on outside forces, such as tourism, and has failed to create jobs as inflation has ballooned. All of these issues became much worse during the COVID-19 pandemic as Tunisia is in its worse economic downturn since 1956 and has one of the world’s highest COVID-19 mortality rates. This has created a negative perception of the government and corruption throughout parliament.
Three days after President Saied acted, a public opinion poll found that 87% of Tunisians surveyed supported the President and only 3% opposed him. Leading Tunisian civil society groups have given President Saied their cautious support, saying that his actions were within the law but that he urgently needs to present a route out of the crisis.
The American reaction has been far different. Voices such as Senator Lindsey Graham have called for the United States to be “on the ground” in Tunisia and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution has called for the suspension of all U.S. aid to Tunisia. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has taken a milder approach, encouraging President Saied to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights.
Policy Analysis
This is undoubtedly a frightening moment for such a young democracy. However, because the President’s actions have popular support and there has been a history of dissatisfaction with the government in Tunisia, the international community must remain cautious in both their judgments and actions. If President Saied keeps his promises, it is likely that this move will be a major step forward for Tunisian Democracy and the Tunisian peoples’ quality of life. The United States needs to be watching with a close eye on the situation but does not need to be “on the ground.”
There is also the threat that President Saied does not keep his word and attempts to retain his complete control. In this instance, it would be important to see how public opinion evolves depending on President Saied’s other actions. It would be ideal to see the United States start to put more support behind Tunisian civil society groups regardless of how exactly public opinion turns out.
Photo taken from: Prospect Magazine
Photo taken from: The New York Times
After 2011 Tunisian civil society has played a large role in being responsive to the population’s needs and desires and up to this point that appears to be their plan going forward. Instances that might require the United States to get more involved include human rights abuses, a shutting down of civil society, or a drastic public opinion shift. Its options could include withholding aid or putting people on the ground to encourage a shift back to more of a democratic system.
The recent news coming out of Tunisia, one of the few states to adopt such a democratic system after The Arab Spring, has scared western observers. But there seems to be a disconnect in perception between western observers and those within Tunisia. As outsiders, it is the United States’ role to understand and keep a close eye on the country at this point and wait to see what happens. An overreaction could be incredibly damaging to American relations with Tunisia while reacting appropriately could give the relationship a large boost.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/tunisia- Human Rights Watch has an overview of the history of Human Rights violations in Tunisia and shares concerns about the current situation.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIcAh9jr7r0- A Revolution in Four Seasons follows two women with opposing views for four years after the Arab Spring began.
Who is Spreading Misinformation About Covid Vaccines?
Who is Spreading Misinformation About Covid Vaccines?
Health & Gender Policy Brief # 123 | By: S. Bhimji | Aug 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: US News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: The New York Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
While the internet has been a good thing, it also has one major negative; it has allowed everyone with a keyboard to become an author and publish whatever they want. Misinformation and fallacies permeate every single topic on the internet but none more so than the Covid vaccines.
Major sources of misinformation are the Internet and social media, television, mainly in the form of Foxnews
For the past 12 months, the internet has been flooded with all types of conspiracy theories about the Covid vaccines and despite the huge number of online articles, it now appears that only a dozen or so individuals may be responsible for this misinformation according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
The CCDH, a combined UK/US non-profit organization, noted that about 12 online individuals with a combined following of 59 million people across many social media platforms have been responsible for the most disinformation.
The social media platform where the largest amount of misinformation occurs is Facebook. Analysis done by CCDH revealed that of the 800,000 Facebook posts on Covid, nearly two-thirds came from the ‘disinformation dozen.’
Even President Biden has been alarmed at the amount of vaccine misinformation and he has claimed that it is one of the driving forces behind the spread of the virus.
Close to 73% of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook is from the disinformation dozen, despite good evidence showing that the vaccines are effective and safe. And shockingly, the majority of misinformed Covid posts on some social media platforms are not removed.
Policy Analysis
Who are the ‘Disinformation Dozen?’
They include some healthcare workers who have embraced quackery and pseudoscience, a wellness blogger, a bodybuilder, a religious fanatic, and most notably the nephew of JFK, Robert F Kennedy Jr who has raged about how vaccines have led to high rates of autism.
But perhaps the biggest source of misinformation is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Dr. Joseph Mercola. While he may not have the appeal of Dr. Oz, he still has considerable online influence in the world of alternative medical practice. Mercola is essentially an opportunist who knows how to promote his business.
His musings revolve around the world of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants and millions subscribe to his philosophy- the key reasons people embrace Mercola is because conventional medicine is not perfect, it is expensive and often fails to deliver; hence millions of Americans have now turned to alternative medicine for cures. And Dr. Mercola preys on them with false promises. What he does is refuse to accept most conventional medical treatments and then markets his own vitamins and minerals as a cure.
Photo taken from: Daily Mail
And among the media, the biggest source of misinformation is Foxnews. For some unknown reasons, presenters on Foxnews have been saying that the vaccine drive is coercive and that it represents government over-each. To make matters worse, Fox reporters are frequently engaged in a policy to discredit the vaccine benefits and the bipartisan values of the democratic party.
So what have the social media platforms done?
Only in recent months have Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook started to clamp down on people who misinform the public about vaccines- but the fact is that all have been ineffective at removing the misinformation. None of these platforms consistently enforce their policies on misinformation, often citing freedom of speech.
And the Covid misinformation is not an American thing- it is a global phenomenon which the WHO has branded as an ‘infodemic.’
There is an abundance of conspiracy theories online linked to covid-19, the majority of which manipulate the emotions of the reader. Plus the pandemic has created an opportunity for scammers who offer almost everything under the sun as a remedy against the virus; unfortunately, many people buy into these theories and purchase products that have zero medicinal value.
Besides the homegrown ‘dozen’ who spread misinformation, China, Russia, and Iran continue to spread even bigger lies. China recently stated that the Covid pandemic started in the USA and the American military personnel helped spread it across geographical borders.
Photo taken from: World Health Organization
Finally, there are the celebrities who also put out a great deal of misinformation. While they have the right to refuse vaccines, they often spread their false beliefs to others. And because celebrities are worshiped in America, thousands of people believe every word they say.
For the public, the best way to avoid Covid misinformation is to consider the source of information and use caution when reading posts on social media.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Covid19misinfo.
Fighting misinformation in the time of COVID-19, one click at a time.
How to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/addressing-vaccine-misinformation.html
Critical Race Theory Debate Rages On
Critical Race Theory Debate Rages On
Education Policy Brief # 58 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | Aug. 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: theweek.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Blavity
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As millions of K-12 students head back to school in the coming weeks, many conservative lawmakers and anxious parents continue to rail against what they see as the dangers of teaching critical race theory, or CRT, in the classroom. But the reality is that myths and misinformation about CRT are based in fear and being perpetuated as a political tool.
In fact, most people don’t understand what CRT is, nor do they realize that proposals to ban its teaching are counter-intuitive since it is currently not being taught in the vast majority of social studies curricula.
While CRT has no universally accepted definition, its central premise is that race is a social construct. In other words, CRT maintains that racism is more than the aberrational result of prejudices and biases from individuals; instead, it is the idea that racism inherently exists in American institutions, systems and policies, thus continually fueling discrimination and creating an uneven playing field for minorities.
CRT actually began more than 40 years ago when Harvard Law School’s Derrick Bell and other scholars began exploring how race and racism affect society. They essentially concluded that racism is part of everyday life and that people of all races make choices that exacerbate racism, even when they don’t intend to be racist. Thus, the theory goes, racism has become embedded in the social justice system, in the housing industry, in education, etc. For example, CRT might be used in education to examine policies and practices that contribute to racially segregated schools, underfunding of majority-Black and Latino school districts, disproportionate disciplining of Black students, curricula that reinforce racist ideas, and other problems.
In short, CRT focuses on the outcomes of systemic racism and how they might be rectified, not merely the fact that some individuals are overtly racist.
Unfortunately, critics of CRT see it as a hate-mongering threat. They say white students, especially, will be demoralized by dividing races into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups, and by teaching students that the United States was founded on racism and white privilege. Some also claim CRT encourages discrimination against white people in order for racial equity among racial groups to be achieved.
“Critical Race Theory teaches kids to hate our country and to hate each other,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tweeted on June 10. “It is state-sanctioned racism and has no place in Florida schools.”
Photo taken from: District Administration
According to a recent poll by the advocacy group Parents Defending Education, “74 percent of the respondents said they were somewhat or strongly opposed to teaching students that white people are inherently privileged and black and other people of color are inherently oppressed” and “69 percent opposed schools teaching that America was founded on racism and is structurally racist.”
Yet, for the most part, the term “critical race theory” is nowhere to be found in K-12 schools; it’s an academic concept that most often is introduced at the college or post graduate level. However, some CRT principles are used in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training for teachers, such as the concept of white privilege.
Policy Analysis
So why is the furor over CRT rising now? The murder of George Floyd by a white Minneapolis police officer in the summer of 2020 not only ignited waves of national Black Lives Matter protests, it also prompted American businesses and institutions to deeply self-reflect on matters of race and racism.
Schools were not immune from the revolution and began to search for more ways to teach about the legacy of slavery. Some districts introduced the New York Times Magazine’s “1619 Project” curriculum. The 1619 Project is a controversial series of essays and articles that “reframes” America’s “history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative”, according to the magazine’s description.
Many point to conservative activist Christopher Rufo for creating the national CRT debate. Rufo, who has promoted his ideas on Fox News, cites diversity trainings and other anti-bias programs as critical race theory. His examples struck a chord with former President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order in September of 2020 prohibiting diversity training and critical race theory. (President Biden later rescinded the order upon taking office.)
Photo taken from: Mark Lewis Taylor
Several GOP state leaders have followed Trump’s lead. The issue has become another culture war battle, especially with many Americans not fully understanding what CRT means. So far, more than 10 Republican-controlled states have taken action to ban the teaching of CRT in schools. Yet not all CRT opponents are conservative or white.
“Liberalism assumes that we are all individuals, capable of reasoning with each other as equals,” said political commentator Andrew Sullivan, whereas CRT assumes that “we are mere representatives of racial constructs which are part of a permanent struggle between the oppressors (white) and oppressed (non-white)”.
The anti-CRT bills are vague, and CRT proponents worry that if they become law teachers might self-censor their own lessons about race. Questions surrounding the constitutionality of the new bills and whether they restrict free speech also exist.
The Association of American Law Schools (AALS), the nation’s largest organization of legal educators, recently issued a public statement which says laws banning the teaching of critical race theory create a “dangerous precedent”.
“The efforts to ban critical theories, just like other attempts at censorship, undermine one of the primary purposes of education: teaching students how to think for themselves.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Anti-C.R.T. activist Christoper Rufo lists 11 examples of “critical race theory in education”
Parents Defending Education poll:
Former President Trump’s executive order 2020 prohibiting diversity training and critical race Theory:
Chalkbeat’s tracking of state efforts to restrict critical race theory in schools:
https://www.chalkbeat.org/22525983/map-critical-race-theory-legislation-teaching-racism
Statement by AALS on Efforts to Ban the Use or Teaching of Critical Race Theory:
https://www.aals.org/aals-newsroom/statement-on-critical-race-theory/
Will This Summer’s Extreme Weather Affect the World’s Resolve to Tackle Climate Change?
Will This Summer’s Extreme Weather Affect the World’s Resolve to Tackle Climate Change?
Environmental Policy Brief # 123 | By: Adrian Cole | August 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: Earth Justice
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Yale E360
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
COP 26 is the latest climate gathering in a process which began with the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC), established then, is comprised of 200 members who commit to meeting annually in a Conference of the Parties (COP). This year the UK will host, and has the presidency. The meeting has been billed as the “last, best chance” to deal with climate change. What are its goals?
At the 2015 Paris COP, the delegates agreed to limits on emissions which would allow for around 2.0 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. (This target has been subsequently revised downwards by scientists to 1.5 degrees.) In the Paris agreement all countries committed to updating their emissions reduction targets every five years, and 2020 represented the end of the first five-year cycle.
The commitments made in Paris in 2015, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) did not come close to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. As of the end of July, the UN has received updated NDCs from only 58% of parties pledged to present them ahead of COP26. Furthermore, according to the UNFCC these new NDCs are insufficient. Collective efforts fall short of limiting warming to even 2 degrees. COP 26 is therefore urging all countries to now update their NDCs to reflect this priority. The COP 26 website says that much more action is necessary:
The world needs to halve emissions over the next decade and reach net zero carbon emissions by the middle of the century if we are to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
COP 26 will urge participants to come up with more aggressive 2030 NDCs, in order to achieve this goal. More specifically, the UK COP presidency says it is cooperating with countries on three main goals— the ending of coal power, scaling up clean power, and increasing energy efficiency. (India recently failed to show up at a preliminary meeting in London, and another pre-COP26 meeting in Italy failed to achieve agreement on phasing out coal).
Finance, to help poor countries reduce emissions, is key here also, and COP 26 has set a goal of raising 100 billion in climate finance per year—a goal set in Paris and not achieved as of yet. Another major focus of COP 26 will be China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. China has yet to submit an updated NDC.
Policy Analysis
For its part, the UN certainly gets it: “The most recent and accelerating climate change impacts constitute a clarion call to action,” read its climate Twitter feed in late July.
The summer of 2021 has been something of a wake-up call to all COP nations—and the world in general: Unheard of temperatures and “heat domes” in the otherwise temperate Pacific Northwest; inundations and flash floods in Germany and northern Europe; “5000” year flood events in China’s Henan Province; mudslides in India and river flooding in Uganda, to name just a few of the most notable events, all of which combine to make of 2021 a shocking year in terms of climate change, killing thousands and destroying billions of dollars of property.
These events have prompted climate scientists to rethink basic assumptions about the scale and speed of change. Such events, according to many of these scientists, would have been impossible without anthropogenic climate change. If this much climate disruption happens at our current level of around 1.2 degrees of warming, even 1.5 will be disastrous.
Photo taken from: Daily Express
Will this summer fuel COP 26 with renewed motivation to achieve its goals? As people experience the affects of climate change, will there be more calls for aggressive climate action? The answer is yes….and no. Common sense might suggest that extreme weather events such as experienced in Lytton, B.C., will spur rapid action on climate, and there is some truth to that. One study conducted in New York State explored the psychological theory of experiential processing and applied it to individuals’ perception of weather. They found that those who believed in—especially human-caused (anthropogenic)—climate change were more likely to connect extreme weather to climate change.
But Jennifer Marlon of the Yale Program on Climate Change writes that people may interpret similar experiences differently. A hard rain may fall on a town of hundreds, and multiple narratives will emerge about about the origins, causes and consequences of that rain, and the future of humanity’s relationship with falling water. In the United States, as an example, sixty percent of Democrats polled nationally say they have experienced global warming, whereas the same is true of only 24% of Republicans living under the same skies.
Photo taken from: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
The Yale Program on Climate Change conducted an experiment using twelve years of survey data to assess whether there are some kinds of weather that people associate more with climate change. They found that hot, dry weather is much more likely to make people feel that they have experienced global warming. The 2011 drought in Texas showed up as a clear influencer of people in this regard, as did the droughts in the West in 2008, 2010, and 2014, and in the Midwest in 2012 and 2013. Extreme precipitation, however, was not so closely associated with climate change, even though there are clear causal relationships between global warming and rainfall.
Ominous clouds are on the horizon, for COP 26, especially in the East. China’s Communist party, perhaps the major player at COP 26, might well be driven to take climate seriously, out of self-interest, and there are certainly noises to that effect from the leadership. But as of yet, the party has been downplaying the relationship between this summer’s extreme rains and climate change, preferring instead to highlight heroic acts of bravery, its own rapid response, and random acts of nature. In conclusion, the events of the summer of 2021—as of this writing—will likely affect some people’s views of the seriousness of changing weather patterns globally, and in nations in which popular will translates to legislative power this might move the needle. Politics and ideology, however, are as always, the two curve balls which will likely act as a drag on a serious response, especially from the world’s most populous nation.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Website for the UK host of COP 26:
Statement from Patricia Espinoza, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Yale Program on Climate Change:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org
Article from The Conversation on how the summer of 2021 has influenced our understanding of climate change:
https://theconversation.com/how-summer-2021-has-changed-our-understanding-of-extreme-weather-165268
Why is There No Covid Vaccine for Children?
Why is There No Covid Vaccine for Children?
Health and Gender Policy Brief # 122 | By: S. Bhimji | Aug 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: Science News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: AAMC
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For much of 2021, only the adult population has been getting vaccinated in the USA but children have not been a priority. Now that schools are about to open, people are asking why children have not been vaccinated.
In the USA, the plans were to only vaccinate the children in the later stages of the vaccine roll-out. As of yet no vaccine has been approved for use in children under the age of 12.
But why has it taken so long to make a Covid vaccine that is effective in children? Surely we have had at least a dozen childhood vaccines that have been used for close to a century with great effectiveness like the polio, rubella, mumps, rubella, pertussis, etc, vaccines. So how come there is no Covid vaccine for children?
Policy Analysis
Experts in infectious disease state that there are no childhood Covid vaccines as of yet is due to two reasons: 1) Unlike adults, children have been less affected by covid-19. When the Covid pandemic started only 3% of children were affected but the latest data indicate that there at least 23% of children have acquired covid-19. Yet death rates and hospitalization have been rare. 2) The majority of clinical trials have only involved adults.
As of Aug 2021, the safety of all Covid vaccines in children under the age of 12 has not been established. In the latest Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial that involved more than 43,000 participants, not a single person under the age of 16 was enrolled. Hence, without clinical trial evidence, no manufacturer can claim that the vaccine is effective in children.
In the rush to get adults vaccinated ASAP, children unfortunately were left out of the trials. The key reason for this is that the early Covid experience revealed high mortality in older adults, especially those with comorbidities; children were rarely affected by the coronavirus. It has all been a question of priorities.
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
According to the latest figures released by the CDC, only 335 children under the age of 17 have died since the Covid pandemic started. In that same period, close to 49,000 children died from other causes-so the death rates from Covid-19 in children are very low. Further, children under the age of 17 represent less than 1.5% of hospital admissions and have much milder symptoms than adults.
It is not clear why children are less susceptible to Covid 19 but it is suspected that there may be fewer receptors in the airways for the virus to attach itself and/or that children may also be exposed to many other viruses which may offer defense from coronavirus-but these are only theories and not proven facts.
Photo taken from: Healio
The timeline for children being vaccinated in North America still depends on the results from clinical trials but it is expected that a roll-out may start at the time of the 2021-22 school year. Companies that make the vaccine are taking a more cautious approach and want to ensure that the vaccines are safe.
Another problem is that without data from clinical trials it is still too early to determine the dose of the vaccine in children. Children do have a robust immune system and may need a lower dose or even a single dose-but how they will respond is another story.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
COVID-19 Vaccines for Children and Teens:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html
Clinical Trials in Children:
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/children
COVID-19 Vaccines:
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
Part 2: The World Trade Organization
Foreign Policy Brief # 125 | By: Ailín Goode | August 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: theconversation.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs here
Photo taken from: World Trade Organization
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
This is the 2nd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS series that examines the effectiveness of our global governance organizations.
The United States has been an active member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since its creation in January 1995. As of 2019, the U.S. had been a party in 179 cases managed using WTO dispute settlement procedures. It remains active in the creation and maintenance of the agreements set for by WTO to organize and govern world trade.
The US is also one of the loudest voices calling for reform within WTO. In July, the US brought the latest revision of the transparency proposal before the General Council. The proposal, first introduced under the Trump Administration, “seeks to enhance transparency and improve Members’ ability to comply with notifications.” Notifications are – “ a transparency obligation requiring member governments to report trade measures to the relevant WTO body.” The most recent revision of the transparency proposal is supported by one-third of WTO members including the EU, Japan, and Singapore.
In addition, the US is continuing to block any new appointments to the Appellate Body of the organization. A decision which has essentially nullified one of the key functions of WTO, its trade dispute settlement process. The United States itself has brought 124 cases before the Appellate Body, the seven person body that hears appeals of panel decisions in trade disputes. However, the AB has been rendered ineffective in recent years by the US choice to block new judges from appointment following concerns of perceived threats to US sovereignty and claims of bias within WTO judges. As the terms of members have continued to expire, the Body no longer has the numbers necessary to hear cases.
As the world’s nations and economies continue to struggle with the effects of COVID-19 and the growing demands of globalization, collaborative organizations such as WTO have come under increasing scrutiny. In the case of WTO, its effectiveness is being called into question for good reason.
Policy Analysis
The World Trade Organization was founded in 1995 as a follow-up to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was established after WWII as part of the post-war effort of nation states to foster international cooperation. GATT addressed tariffs, anti-dumping agreements, and other trade barriers. As GATT became outdated by the growing needs of the global economy, its members agreed via the Uruguay Round to establish WTO.
The 164 member nations of WTO account for roughly 96% of global trade. It exists “to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.”It has six major functions designed to protect both consumers and producers and to liberalize global trade by reducing trade barriers between developed and developing countries.
Photo taken from: Wikiwand
They are: Administering WTO trade agreements; serving as a forum for trade negotiations; handling trade disputes; monitoring national trade policies; providing technical assistance and training for developing countries; and engaging in cooperation with other international organizations.
WTO enforces roughly 60 global trade agreements between its 164 member nations. These agreements regulate global trade, but also act as a framework for other bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations , many of which have been successful, such as The Bali Package.
However, the processes by which these global agreements are negotiated has come under strong criticism for their lack of transparency, exclusive nature, and systemic bias towards more powerful nations. Such was the case of the multiple breakdowns of The Doha Round negotiations.
Also referred to as the Doha Development Agenda, The Doha Round was initiated in 2001. It is the most recent and the last round of trade agreement negotiations to involve all members of WTO. Its focus claimed to be the needs and interests of developing countries and its aim was to lower global trade barriers and address issues in agriculture. However, multiple negotiation attempts failed.
Photo taken from: South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation
The breakdown of the 2008 talks regarding The Doha Round was due to disagreements between developed and developing nations on subjects like tariffs and food sovereignty. Multiple countries expressed frustration that many of the talks involved only seven major trading powers, while the representatives from other developing nations remaining uninvited. India’s trade minister at the time “accused the US of putting the livelihoods of a billion of the world’s poorest people against “commercial interests.””
It is thought by many commentators that, after multiple deadlines for concluding The Doha Round talks were missed, the Nairobi Package of 2015 signaled a shift in WTO negotiations to smaller, more focused trade agreements. Both the Bali Package of 2013 and the Nairobi Package addressed parts of The Doha Round talks. The Bali Package was approved by the 9th Ministerial Conference, the Nairobi Package by the 10th.
The Bali Package addressed food security, development and Least-Developed Countries (LDC) issues, cotton subsidies, and The Trade Facilitation Agreement. The Nairobi Package had six decisions on issues including agricultural subsidies, market access, and enhancing provisions for LDCs. Both packages are considered a success, particularly in benefiting developing countries.
WTO’S struggles are evident in the last 20 years of negotiations involving the global fishing industry. Government ministers and other world leaders have struggled since 2001 to agree on a solution for addressing unsustainable fishing practices and fishing subsidies. As of July, an agreement had not been reached, however the Trade Negotiations Committee expressed confidence that, though there were still issues that needed to be addressed, the revised text for negotiation should be a functional basis for agreement by December.
Photo taken from: The Hindu
Another current impasse within WTO is over the proposition to waive intellectual property rights for vaccines in order to address the shortages being faced by developing countries during the continuing pandemic. The Biden Administration released a statement in May backing the proposal introduced by South Africa and India to equalize global access to the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the most recent talks held in July, failed to reach a consensus among member states regarding the implementation of the waiver. Talks are scheduled to continue in September, almost a year after the proposal was first introduced.
Despite one of its goals being to aid developing nations, WTO has fallen under heavy scrutiny for exacerbating economic inequality. In particular, its actions regarding agriculture and intellectual property have drawn criticism from economists and activists alike. In her book Blame it on the WTO?: A Human Rights Critique, Sarah Joseph (Director for the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law) criticizes The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) , writing that, “TRIPS presently mandates the regressive transfer of wealth from the South to the North because most patents are owned by people, particularly companies, from the North.64 Populations in the South, where patent rights were not generally respected prior to TRIPS, must now pay more for patented goods. The biggest losers are the poor in developing countries, who cannot afford the price increases.”
She cites the 2005 Human Development Report, that also challenges the idea that trade liberalization automatically leads to economic development and greater financial equality. “Participation in trade can exacerbate inequality as poor people absorb the adjustment costs of increased competition from imports, while people with assets and market power take advantage of opportunities provided by exports.”
One of the most utilized functions of WTO is their dispute settlement procedures. Through their dispute settlement system , WTO outlines the process countries must take to challenge perceived violations of trade agreements. The steps include various means to settle disputes through consultations, panel procedures, and the establishment of an Appellate Body. These procedures were designed to avoid potential military and political conflicts by giving nation’s a separate, clearly structured, mechanism to handle economic disagreements. However, of the 605 disputes brought before WTO since 1995 only around 350 have been ruled on.
With the upcoming Ministerial Conference set for December of this year, many countries are offering their suggestions and requests for organizational reform. As WTO continues to struggle on its most prominent fronts, its future remains uncertain. It is clear that its continued effectiveness as an organization will require much work and the willingness of its member states to compromise.
Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space
Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space
Technology Policy Brief #60 | By: Henry Lenard | August 6, 2021
Header photo taken from: military.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Sputnik News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Even as space commerce soars to new heights, it appears the world continues to gird itself for the inevitability of warfare in the heavens.
At the official opening of the new UK Space Command on July 30, two top British military officers directly criticized China and Russia for their “reckless” behavior in space, such as using weapons to destroy satellites. That activity has left a trail of dangerous space debris in Earth’s orbit.
The two commanders also left open the possibility that the UK could develop its own weapons to defend assets in space for the first time.
“I am not ruling out what we might do in the future, but we don’t want to weaponize space,” General Sir Patrick Sanders of Strategic Command, told Sky News.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, the head of the Royal Air Force, added: “When diplomacy has run its course and we find ourselves in a global conflict, it might not start in space, but I am in no doubt it will move very quickly to space, and it will most likely be won or lost in space.”
The UK Space Command, which will take charge of all military work involving space, is now considered a domain of operations alongside land, sea, air and cyberspace. The new organization will bolster the UK’s ability to track threats in space, from space junk to deliberate attacks in coordination..
The move follows the creation of the U.S. Space Force (USSF) two years ago as the newest branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. It was established December 20, 2019 with enactment of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.
USSF organizes, trains and equips space forces to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force.
Photo taken from: Born to Engineer
It was established within the Department of the Air Force, giving the Secretary of the Air Force overall responsibility for the USSF, under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, a four-star general known as the Chief of Space Operations serves as the senior military member of the USSF and is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The bill establishing the Space Force passed Congress in 2019 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Several Democrats in both the House and Senate also crossed the aisle to form bipartisan Space Force caucuses in each chamber.
The importance of a military branch dedicated to the defense of space was underscored by the release on February 11, 2019 by the Defense Intelligence Agency of an unclassified report on U.S. space capabilities. That report identified threats posed to our space assets by four key adversaries: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Both China and Russia, according to the DIA, are developing military capabilities in space, from laser weapons to ground-based anti-satellite missiles. DIA’s report said China “is second only to the United States in the number of operational satellites.”
To counter that threat, the USSF is planning secret satellite dish bases in the UK, Australia and Texas to protect satellites from Russian and Chinese weapons. The Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability system will be able to spot objects the size of footballs from 22,400 miles away. It will monitor the skies for both suspicious activity and dangerous space debris. It is expected to be operational by 2027.
Policy Analysis
Playing out against the backdrop of the Cold War, the “Space Race” between the U.S. and the Soviet Union always had a military component to it.
It had its origins in the ballistic missile-based nuclear arms race between the two adversaries following World War II. Both countries saw the opportunity to demonstrate technological achievements in space as necessary for national security and part of the ideological symbolism of the era.
Soon after the dawn of the Space Race, with the launch of the first satellites in 1957, the United Nations took the lead in formulating rules governing space activities. The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was set up by the General Assembly in 1959 to govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity: for peace, security and development.
COPUOS was instrumental in the creation of the five treaties and principles of outer space: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1968 Rescue Agreement, the 1972 Liability Convention, the 1975 Registration Convention and the 1979 Moon Agreement.
Photo taken from: US Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and was open for signature on January 27, 1967 and entered into force on October 10, 1967. As of February 2021, 111 countries are parties to the treaty, while another 23 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.
Among the Outer Space Treaty’s main points are that it prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons in space, limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body.
Being primarily an arms-control treaty for the peaceful use of outer space, it also expressly prohibits the use of celestial bodies for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable. The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial body such as the Moon or a planet.
Photo taken from: Department of Defense
Outer space has since been used as an operating location for military satellites and some ballistic missiles pass through outer space during their flight.
A military satellite is mostly used for communication, navigation and intelligence gathering. Some satellites were also developed for early warning of approaching missiles. Due to secrecy and some countries having GPS satellites serving both military and civilian use, it is difficult to know the exact number of military satellites in space.
Tabulated from various sources, the U.S. has an estimated 200-250 military satellites, and Russia and China approximately 200 each. Other countries, such as France, Germany, Israel, Italy, India, the UK, Turkey, Mexico, Columbia, Spain, Denmark, Japan, Algeria, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan and Chile have less than 10 each.
China’s stated goal is to become a space power and recently designated space as a military domain. Pentagon officials have grown increasingly worried about the vulnerability of spacecraft to anti-satellite weapons as Beijing’s space programs continue to mature.
In June 2020, then Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper released the Defense Space Strategy, which identifies how DoD will advance space power to be able to compete, deter and win in a complex security environment characterized by great power competition.
“The Defense Space Strategy is the next step to ensure space superiority and to secure the Nation’s vital interests in space now and in the future,” said Esper.
Through the strategy, DoD will advance space power through three objectives: Maintain Space Superiority; Provide Space Support to National, Joint, and Combined Operations; and Ensure Space Stability.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
U.S. DoD Defense Space Strategy Summary:
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/17/2002317391/-1/-1/1/2020_DEFENSE_SPACE_STRATEGY_SUMMARY.PDF
U.S. Space Force:
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency 2019 ‘Challenges to Security in Space’ report:
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:
Are We Going to Need Booster Shots of the Covid Vaccine?
Are We Going to Need Booster Shots of the Covid Vaccine?
Health & Gender Policy Brief # 121 | By: S Bhimji | Aug 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: Pink Sheet Informa
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: WebMD
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There is no longer any question about the efficacy of Covid vaccines. Most studies indicate that they prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death. However, breakthrough infections are being reported with a higher frequency. A few months ago, there were only a few sporadic reports but now it appears the numbers are rising.
As of July 26 2021, data released by the CDC indicate that more than 163 million individuals in the USA have been fully vaccinated against Covid 19. At the same time, reporting from 49 states and territories reveals that there were 6,587 patients with Covid 19 vaccine breakthrough infections who required admission to the hospital or died.
It is also important to be aware that the data on breakthrough cases is incomplete and not undertaken by every state. Most US experts say that the breakthrough cases are rare and have been known to occur with many other vaccines because no vaccine is 100% effective. More importantly, the data reveal that the vast majority of Covid 19 cases including hospitalization and deaths in the USA are in unvaccinated individuals.
But now more dominant Delta strain is being reported everywhere in the USA but robust data on the effects of vaccine on this strain are lacking.
While American infectious disease experts do not seem alarmed by the slight increase in breakthrough cases, the UK is taking a different approach.
Policy Analysis
It appears that the British government is considering large scale immunization of its population with a booster shot, but the question is will it be worthwhile or an exercise in futility?
The UK government is planning to administer booster shots to all adults over the age of 50 starting Sept 6. This decision to administer the booster follows advice given by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization just a month ago.
UK experts reveal that the reason behind the booster shot is that benefits of immunization tend to wear off over time and the boost shot may restrict the damage caused by the delta variant and may also prevent the exacerbation of symptoms caused by the flu virus in the fall.
Britain is not alone in considering the booster shot; Israel has also started administering booster shots to individuals who have compromised immune systems.
Photo taken from: The BBC
And just recently the Israeli government announced that the booster shot program will be extended to all adults over the age of 60.
While the CDC has rejected the third shot, the Advisory Committee on Immunization has recommended it for Americans with a suppressed immune system.
Asides from Israel and the UK, no other nation has recommended the booster shot for people over the age of 50.
Experts from the UK believe that vaccines offer good protection for at least 6 months and thus the booster shot may help extend the immunity. So far in the USA most people are only 4 months after full vaccination and it is not known when and if the immunity will wear off. The other problem is that many US states are no longer monitoring for symptoms of recurrence.
Photo taken from: thehill.com
The third shot may not be a bad idea. The reason is that a small South African study suggested that the AstraZeneca booster vaccine had an efficacy of only 21.9% against the beta variant. However no studies were conducted on the delta variant.
But a universal program of administering a third shot does come with one major issue; so far our government has been saying that vaccines are very effective and everyone should be vaccinated. But recommending a third shot after just 4 months of being fully vaccinated, this may undermine the public’s confidence; this is especially true in the unvaccinated population who already believe that the vaccines do not work.
So far there is very little data on how fast the immunity fades with the different vaccines. The big question is, ‘will the vaccines really overcome the pandemic or will we need to wear masks, maintain our distance and continue taking booster shots for a long time?
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months:
Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Vaccine Boosters
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/07/08/joint-cdc-and-fda-statement-vaccine-boosters.html
Britain starts planning for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots this fall