“If the mRNA technology that Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna have developed and deployed…were to be shared with any number of these 120 companies, we could vaccinate the world in close to six months,” Prabhala explained. “It’s not theoretical. It’s based, in fact, on a model of existing partnerships that companies like Moderna have with very similar manufacturers, except they’re located in Spain instead of Bangladesh or Senegal or Tunisia.”
According to the latest data from the World Health Organization, more than two-thirds of people in high income countries have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose; in low income countries, less than a tenth of the population has received one. There are still countries, mainly in Africa, where the vaccination rate is at or below one percent.
Lifting patent restrictions “loosens Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech’s stranglehold on these vaccines,” Prabhala said. “It undercuts the massive tens of billions of dollars of profit and revenue that they can earn off selling to poor countries in the next couple of years, once they’re done with rich countries.” He offered a solution: “President Biden can bring Moderna to the White House, sit them across the table, say that we have laws that can force you to do what we are asking you to do, but we’d rather you just do it instead, work out that agreement, and then let it go and take credit for vaccinating the world.”
Biosecurity strategies in wealthy nations emphasized stockpiling vaccines for their populations, especially for providing booster shots to the general populace rather than for specifically the most vulnerable. By failing to compel vaccine manufacturers to release their technology or distribute more vaccines outside its own borders, the imperial core essentially threw the rest of of the world under the bus but stillfailed even to secure its own health. What this strategy did secure was massive profits for Pharma. Scientists were well aware this strategy would fail to keep us safe, and would lead inevitably to new variants that would jeopardize everyone, but as ever the voice of money spoke louder to government than the voice of science.
Oh yeah, this bill is THAT BAD. Every one of my Hoosier educator friends is pissed. Essentially, this gives power to the parents over what their children are taught in public school, which from an outside perspective sounds great but… its indiana.
There are a lot of hate groups in indiana. And I know we like to joke that they’re losers who live in their moms basement, but the truth is that most of them have school age kids. This gives them power to decide what should and should not be taught.
They tell you that this is because of Critical Race Theory. Your child is not going to learn Critical Race Theory unless they’re taking college level law courses. This is about control.
Parents should not have the power to keep their children ignorant of history education should be independent of the parents will even if it’s against the parents will a child is not a piece of their property it is a young person with equal rights which they’ve been entrusted with caring for.
History is not neutral there is no such thing as an unbiased perspective all teaching of history adopts a stance about the moral character of events depending on whose interests the narrators serve. To talk apologetics for nazis is to serve nazism that’s a very dark path to walk down and let me tell you history will not be neutral in its sentiments about the ones who allowed it to happen.
Parents can sometimes be and I speak from direct experience the source of their child’s misery parents can abuse their child to the point they start contemplating suicide to prohibit a teacher from engaging with expressions of suicidal ideation is to force them to turn a blind eye to open calls for help leaving them at the mercy of their abusers.
“Similar political parties”
I wonder who they could mean
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?
With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.
In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.
![abandonedandurbex:
“Computer wiring tunnel inside an abandoned coal power plant, photo by Bryan Buckley [1280x854]
”](https://64.media.tumblr.com/62446623f76b5d31016f29ee1228efaf/tumblr_phof9ytcde1uky4nio1_500.jpg)
