Coronavirus
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
‘Dragged off and hung for treason’: jury at Whitmer kidnap trial see online posts
‘Dragged off and hung for treason’: jury at Whitmer kidnap trial see online postsProsecutors show jurors social media posts which defense says do not show plot to snatch Michigan governor Jurors on Tuesday saw provocative social media posts written by a key figure charged in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, including a photo of a noose and a question: which governor would be “dragged off and hung for treason first?”Michigan governor kidnap case: hardened terrorists or FBI dupes?Read moreFederal prosecutors were close to finishing their case after 12 days of trial in Grand Rapids, Michigan. They are trying to show that four men charged with conspiring to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, in 2020 were committed to a plan without influence by informants or undercover FBI agents.In 2020, when governors including Whitmer were issuing stay-home orders, requiring masks and restricting the economy during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, Barry Croft Jr, a trucker from Bear, Delaware, regularly vented on Facebook about government and public officials.“Which governor is going to end up dragged off and hung for treason first?“ Croft wrote on Memorial Day. “It’s really a spin the bottle match at this point and I’m sure a few mayors are in the running!!! God bless the constitutional republic!!!“A few days later, Croft posted about seizing state capitols and “putting these tyrants’ addresses out here for rioters”.The FBI said that message was “liked” by Adam Fox, who with Croft is described as a leader of the scheme to kidnap Whitmer. Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta are also charged with the kidnapping conspiracy.Defense lawyers deny there was an actual plan to snatch Whitmer, claiming the men were induced by agents and informants and exchanged wild talk while smoking marijuana.The attorney Joshua Blanchard has accused the FBI of targeting Croft because agents didn’t like his strident views. He referred to a meme posted by Croft of ammunition with the message: “Oh, look, 30 votes that count.”“A little tongue in cheek? A little bit funny?” Blanchard asked FBI agent Thomas Szymanski.“I didn’t laugh when I saw this meme,” the agent replied.Whitmer, a Democrat, rarely talks publicly about the kidnapping plot, though she referred to “surprises” during her term that seem like “something out of fiction” when she filed for re-election on 17 March.She has blamed Donald Trump for fomenting anger over coronavirus restrictions and refusing to condemn rightwing extremists like those charged in the case. Whitmer has said the former president was complicit in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.TopicsMichiganThe far rightUS politicsCoronavirusnewsReuse this content More
The Risk Posed by Global Inflation
Since the reopening of national economies after COVID-19 lockdowns, inflation has been rising around the world. This change in the macroeconomic environment caught policymakers off guard in terms of adapting inflation forecasting models and assessing the causes of this evolution. As a result, old debates have resurfaced about the risks and opportunities of inflation and how best to restore price stability.
Despite the rapid surge, inflation was not totally unexpected since it is partially attributable to measures taken to reopen national economies, resulting in increased demand and disruptions of supply chains and production, says Archana Sinha, the head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute. In this sense, the current inflationary environment differs from the one in the late 1970s and may prove only transitory.
COVID-19 Policies Carry Implications for South Korea’s Presidential Election
READ MORE
There are, however, other drivers of inflation that may prove more long-lasting. This includes, as Domingo Sugranyes of the Pablo VI Foundation points out, decarbonization and economic concentration, allowing excessive pricing power. Additional factors are rising property and stock prices, as well as the increase of raw material prices, Etienne Perrot explains.
As a result, as Valerio Bruno mentions, central banks’ instruments, such as raising interest rates, may not suffice to reverse current inflationary pressures. Bruno, a researcher, says that we can “expect a long period of high inflation.” That being said, it is far from certain that central banks are willing to use these instruments because of their concern with financial stability that a selloff on financial markets may jeopardize.
Embed from Getty Images
From a socioeconomic perspective, Andrew Cornford recalls that inflation is not a “uniform problem” since its effects vary among countries, sectors and groups. The main problem, Bruno points out, is that “the wages of workers, in particular the middle class, suffer greatly from a declining purchasing power. If wages are not adjusted to inflation, consumptions and companies’ profits are affected, leading to a possible economic recession.”
On the other hand, inflation may benefit debtors by depreciating their debts. However, Cedric Tille, a professor in macroeconomics, warns that “any persistent inflation will raise the cost of additional borrowing” in the future and therefore “any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary.” For instance, Sugranyes says, “many weaker debtors will find growing difficulty in refinancing at higher interest rates.”
The current rise of inflation pressure may prove to be only temporary — not inflation in the pure sense — but it has to be taken seriously because it could dash hopes of economic recovery and weigh on the morale of populations exhausted by waves of social restrictions.
By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski
Note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: What are the main threats, but also possibly the main opportunities, related to inflation?
“… inflation is not new … ”
“Inflation is not new; it was hidden behind rising property and stock prices, leading to properties disparities. As international competition has diminished, the rise in energy and raw material prices has a direct impact on consumer goods. Its social effects (on pensioners and various marginal groups), as well as its economic consequences for long-term investments (distortions) and interest rates (rise), must be taken into account. On the other hand, inflation favors, for a time, companies, indebted households and massively borrowing states. Debtors become more credible in financing the investments needed for the ecological transition”
Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)
“… any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary … ”
“While inflation has a short-run benefit for debtors, one must bear in mind that these debtors will borrow additional amounts in the future. Any persistent inflation will raise the cost of these additional borrowing, including a term premium. Therefore, any gain from inflation for some actors is likely to be temporary. Looking through the inflation movements of the coming months, which hopefully will prove temporary, the reasons underpinning central banks’ mandates of symmetric price stability remain as valid as they have ever been.”
Cedric Tille — professor of macroeconomics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva
“… inflation does not entail any real benefit …”
“Inflation does not entail any real benefit for most governments and businesses. Although debts may be depreciated in the long term, many weaker debtors will find growing difficulty in refinancing at higher interest rates and will see financial flows fleeing toward ‘safer’ harbors. There are objective reasons for cost increase, like decarbonization or restructuring of supply chains, which should lead us to admit that we are slightly poorer than we thought. Concentration also may allow business excessive pricing power. The vicious circle of inflation is an illusionary way of denying these facts, leading to even worse impoverishment. Some governments may be tempted to print money, [but] there will be growing pressure for automatic indexation of salaries and pensions. Difficult challenges!”
Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group
“… policy responses must address distributional dimensions … ”
“Inflation is not a uniform problem. It varies among countries (high, middle and low-income), among income groups within countries, among goods and thus producing sectors (e.g., energy and primary commodities used for food), and amongst services (e.g., health-related, finance and travel). As is generally acknowledged, policy responses — both national and those involving international finance and aid — must address distributional dimensions, avoiding links to austerity and other attached conditions likely to increase poverty. In developed countries, policy design will frequently be handicapped by a lack of pertinent data, especially regarding wealth in the form of financial assets and tax liabilities. An option here would be a once-and-for-all capital levy high enough to help a government to deal with immediate increases in its financial liabilities, while leaving permanent solutions to the problem of enormous inequalities of wealth to be attained as part of a future response to longer-term needs and objectives.”
Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
“… the risks of inflation far outweigh the possible benefits … ”
“It seems to me that the risks of inflation far outweigh the possible benefits. To make effective use of the tools available to central banks, it would be necessary to understand the real causes of inflation (a ‘drugged’ financial economy, monopolies and oligopolies, or the costs of raw materials). Unfortunately, central banks’ instruments, such as raising interest rates, are not always sufficient to reverse this trend. We can therefore expect a long period of high inflation, with ‘classic’ safe-haven assets as gold reaching historic highs. The main problem with inflation is that the wages of workers, in particular the middle class, suffer greatly from a declining purchasing power. If wages are not adjusted to inflation, consumptions and companies’ profits companies are affected, leading to a possible economic recession.”
Valerio Bruno — researcher in politics
“… inflation at these levels is a cause for concern …”
“Labor market conditions are improving but tempestuous, and the pandemic continues to threaten life and economic activity. The rapid reopening of the economy has brought a sharp advance in inflation. These are challenging times for the public. The dynamics of inflation are complex, and inflation can be assessed from a number of diverse perspectives, including the absence of inflation pressures; moderating inflation in high inflation items; wages; and long-term inflation expectations. Businesses and consumers widely report upward pressure on prices and wages. Inflation at these levels is a cause for concern. This assessment is a critical and ongoing one as we continue to monitor inflation data against each of these perspectives.
Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India
*[An earlier version of this article was published by From Virus to Vitamin.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
German Far-Right Conspiracy Theorists Step Up Attempts to Undermine Schools
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, independent schools in Germany, particularly the Waldorf (also known as Steiner) schools attracted far-right conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers. Over the past two years, reported incidents of COVID-19 skepticism coupled with far-right conspiracy theories at Waldorf schools appear to be on the increase. Some COVID-19 deniers even attempted to establish their own schools in order to withdraw their children from government influence. Which far-right groups have been the driving force behind these developments, and what have the authorities done about it?
Gravitational Pull to the Right
As of February 2020, across Germany, approximately 90,000 pupils attended the 254 state-recognized Waldorf schools, whose curricula originate in an anthroposophical worldview. According to the Anthroposophical Society, the Waldorf pedagogy system, which was developed by the Austrian spiritualist Rudolf Steiner in the early 20th century, encourages “ways of recognizing and exploring the supersensible-spiritual world that exists in the sensory-material world. This ‘spiritual science’ sees itself as a new approach to a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of nature and man.”
German Pharmacies at the Heart of an Anti-Racism Debate
READ MORE
The concept behind Waldorf schools is a “developmentally appropriate, experiential, and academically-rigorous approach to education.” Compared to the pressure to perform in state-run schools, the goal is to strengthen individual responsibility as well as creative, practical and social skills. Another difference lies in self-administration by parents and teachers instead of a “hierarchically organized external control of the state schools.”
Through close personal ties with teachers, parents can actively influence everyday school life according to their beliefs with fewer interventions of internal school control bodies compared to state schools. Hence, the self-administration model makes independent schools susceptible to infiltration by far-right actors and conspiracy theorists. According to Ansgar Martins, a religious studies scholar at Frankfurt University, this structural weakness is compounded by the “pronounced anthroposophical inclination toward conspiracy theories” of Waldorf schools that stems from Steiner’s original teachings.
Steiner held a developmental, esoteric and essentially racist view of humanity that saw the world divided into superior and inferior races, exemplified by countless discriminatory statements against Jewish and especially black people: “How can a Negro or an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? … The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nonsense that it now plays such a large role in Europe.”
Embed from Getty Images
These remarks are joined by Steiner’s pseudoscientific conception of the physical and intellectual superiority of the white race, reminiscent of the Nazi-era Volkstum concept according to which humanity reached its developmental endpoint in the white race: “If the blue-eyed and blond-haired people were to die out, people would become increasingly stupid unless they developed a kind of cleverness which is independent of blondness. … The white race is the future race, is the spirit-creating race.”
According to Germany’s Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, these statements “are to be regarded as particularly serious, since they are by no means random products or racist stereotypes caused by the spirit of the times. Rather, they are to be seen as manifestations of a specifically Steinerian esoteric racial science.” In the Stuttgart Declaration of 2007, the Association of Independent Waldorf Schools condemned “any racist or nationalist appropriation of their pedagogy.” Nevertheless, this declaration did little to prevent attracting far-right conspiracy theorists even before the pandemic.
Far-Right Infiltration
In 2013, the managing director of a Waldorf school in the German town of Rendsburg was dismissed because of connections to the far-right Reichsbürger (Citizens of the Reich) movement. He attracted attention by distributing leaflets in the school spouting that “the Federal Republic of Germany … is not a state, but the managing legal advisor of a state simulation [is]. There is no de jure and de facto state of the Federal Republic of Germany.”
The Reichsbürger is a heterogeneous movement that, referring to the historical German Reich, rejects the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal system, thus denying legitimacy to democratically elected representatives. A small proportion of the Reichsbürger movement is made up of right-wing extremists, but the anti-state and conspiracy theory tenets of the entire scene facilitate a connection to anti-Semitic narratives that are central to the far-right domain.
Embed from Getty Images
At another Waldorf school in the German town of Minden, a teacher taught unchecked for 20 years before his connections to ethno-nationalist right-wing extremist groups became known. Even before Wolf-Dieter Schröppe became a teacher, he maintained contacts with veteran Nazis, including the war criminal Erich Priebke — the man responsible for the massacre of 335 people as a captain in the SS and sentenced to life in prison. It took more than four months before the school terminated Schröppe’s employment contract, partly because some colleagues spoke out in his support.
In 2015, these incidents prompted the Association of Independent Waldorf Schools to publish a brochure conceding that the anthroposophy-based Waldorf pedagogy has a “great attraction” for the right-wing extremist conspiracy theorists, specifically for the Reichsbürger.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, Waldorf anthroposophy again garnered attention. To this day, Steiner’s worldview translates into a greater vaccine skepticism in Germany as a whole and in Waldorf schools in particular due to public acceptance and influence of anthroposophy. Underlying Steiner’s philosophy is the dangerous belief that diseases serve a karmic purpose by stimulating child development and making amends for mistakes in past lives.
Hence, over the last decades, vaccine skepticism has manifested itself in lower vaccination rates in Waldorf schools, resulting in regular measles outbreaks. In this respect, an incident at a school in the city of Freiburg came as no surprise when 117 COVID-19 cases were recorded and more than 50 forged medical certificates were discovered exempting students and teachers from wearing a mask.
Embed from Getty Images
At a Waldorf school in the Bavarian town of Landsberg, a father who is both a doctor and a homeopath issued certificates to families of other students to circumvent mandatory mask-wearing, denouncing people who choose to do so as “mask hypochondriacs.” At a demonstration against COVID-19 measures, he showed the indictable Hitler salute that resulted in criminal charges.
The Bavarian Ministry of Education confirms these incidents are not isolated cases. Mask exemption certificates were seven times more likely to be issued at Bavarian Waldorf schools than at state schools. Nevertheless, many Waldorf parents show resolve against COVID-19 deniers and far-right activities. According to the mobile counseling service against right-wing extremism in Bavaria, Waldorf parents “disproportionately often” reported similar incidents at schools during the pandemic.
COVID-19 Denier Schools
To evade resistance at state but also independent schools and shield children from COVID-19 measures, some parents and teachers went a step further, founding their own learning initiatives and so-called supplementary schools. Insights into the network groups behind those supplementary schools reveal political affinities not only with the Reichsbürger but with another the far-right esoteric movement.
In Rosenheim, Bavaria, an elementary and middle school teacher founded a Querdenker (Lateral Thinkers) school to reflect the movement’s pandemic skepticism. More than 50 pupils were taught here by parents and educators, including herbalists, music teachers and shamans. On advertising leaflets, the school falsely claimed to be located on Russian territory so that German law would not be applicable.
Embed from Getty Images
The school principal was active in networks spreading far-right esoteric ideas of the Anastasia movement, a decentralized conspiracy group of far-right esotericists and settlers, based on the protagonist of the “Anastasia” fantasy novel series by Russian author Vladimir Megre. According to sociologist Matthias Quent, the novels “transport cultural racism and anti-Semitism. These are ideological patterns that we also know from National Socialism. According to them, modern society is doomed, and people must retreat to the native soil or family estates.”
Connections to the Anastasia movement also existed in the newly founded Bauernhofschule (farm school) in the state of Hesse, which was registered as a supplementary school. Hesse’s school law enables parents to establish schools with scant bureaucratic hurdles as long as they supplement, not replace state curricula. According to the German state of Hesse’s public broadcaster, HR, Telegram chat transcripts revealed that the school operators proclaimed to teach children how to keep animals, grow vegetables and live in harmony with nature. Nevertheless, the chat was inundated with extremist, anti-Semitic views from the Reichsbürger and Anastasia movements.
Even Holocaust denial — a criminal offense in Germany — received indifferent or approving reactions in the chats. The ideological connections of the Bauernhofschule reach as far as the fringes of the QAnon movement, as Martin Laker’s membership in the group suggests. Laker is an active member of the Anastasia movement and runs his own online platform where he spreads QAnon myths.
Underestimating the Problem
Germany’s political establishment has been slow in reacting to the growing problem. While the authorities are taking action against the newly founded supplementary schools, including enforced closures due to a lack of permits, there is still no sign yet of German politicians taking the danger posed by far-right anthroposophists seriously enough.
In January 2021, the Green Party’s national parliamentary group issued a request asking what connections between right-wing extremist opponents of the COVID-19 measures and anthroposophical groups are known to the German government and how it assesses “the potential danger in this regard, given the fact that anthroposophy in Germany maintains a far-reaching network of companies, foundations, and public institutions.” The answer: “The Federal Government has no knowledge of this.”
This rection is particularly disappointing considering the fight against right-wing extremism has gained political traction in recent years due to record high numbers of politically motivated crimes by right-wing extremists. In 2020, the government published a substantial catalog of measures accompanied by a 100-page final report on combating right-wing extremism and racism the following year. According to the report, programs to prevent extremism in state schools are to be promoted more vigorously but fail to mention the right-wing extremist slant of anthroposophical groups and independent schools.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
It remains to be seen whether the new government under the leadership of Angela Merkel’s successor Olaf Scholz will turn its eye to this blind spot. There seems to be no lack of will on the part of Scholz’s fellow party member and the new minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser, who announced at her first public appearance in the new role that “A particular concern of mine will be to combat the greatest threat currently facing our free democratic basic order, right-wing extremism.”
The threat posed by far-right conspiracy theories and fake news might have only entered the public consciousness with the triumph of social media platforms. But conspiracy theories don’t germinate in a vacuum. Instead, often far-reaching causes are behind their emergence. In Germany, the societal impact of widespread anthroposophic views, promoted in state-approved institutions like the Waldorf schools, is one of the many causes that deserve increased critical, not at least political, attention.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
- in US Politics
US likely to see Covid cases rise from Omicron subvariant, Fauci says
US likely to see Covid cases rise from Omicron subvariant, Fauci saysBiden’s chief medical adviser also says the US is ‘clearly going in the right direction’ on the pandemic The US is likely to see an increase in Covid cases like that in Europe and the UK thanks to the BA.2 virus subvariant but not a dangerous surge, Anthony Fauci said on Sunday.Warning signs for US as Covid cases rise in Europe Read moreJoe Biden’s chief medical adviser also said the US was “clearly going in the right direction” on the coronavirus pandemic.BA.2, Fauci told ABC’s This Week, “has a degree of transmission advantage over the original Omicron [variant], but not multifold advantage. So, it’s about 50% to 60% or so more transmissible, which means ultimately it might take over as a dominant variant.“Clearly, throughout the world it’s about 80-plus percent, 85% of the isolate. In the United States, it’s still somewhere around 30%.“So it does have an increased transmission capability. However, when you look at the cases, they do not appear to be any more severe and they do not appear to evade immune responses either from vaccines or prior infection.“So the bottom line is we likely will see an uptick in cases as we’ve seen in the European countries, particularly the UK, where … they have BA.2. They have a relaxation of some restrictions such as indoor masking and there’s a waning of immunity.“Hopefully, we won’t see a surge. I don’t think we will. The easiest way to prevent that is to continue to get people vaccinated. And for those who have been vaccinated, to continue to get them boosted.”Fauci said he did not see any reason to reimpose public health restrictions relaxed under a federal approach meant to focus on areas with pressure on hospital systems.“But you always have to have the flexibility,” he said.“Remember, when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with the modification of their metrics, which would lead to the guidelines of what regions or counties in the country should have a masking indoors, they made it very clear that … if we do see a significant surge, particularly one that might result in increased hospitalisations, we have to be prepared to pivot and perhaps reinstitute some of those restrictions.“But right now, at this point, I don’t see that.”More than 970,000 people have died of Covid-19 in the US. Fauci said vaccination and booster rates still needed to be improved and said Congress should build-up supplies of anti-virals, tests and booster shots.“We just can’t stand still,” he said, “particularly as we appear to be in somewhat of a lull … where cases continue to come down, deaths continue to come down and hospitalisations [too].‘Mosquito in a nudist colony’: Republican Ron Johnson targets Fauci and Hunter BidenRead more“That’s no time at all to declare victory because this virus has fooled us before, and we really must be prepared for the possibility that we might get another variant and we don’t want to be caught flatfooted on that.”Fauci, 81 and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has served seven presidents since 1984. He has said he will consider retiring when the pandemic is done.Asked if he was any nearer such a decision, he told ABC: “I’m not so sure. I want to make sure we’re really out of this before I really seriously consider doing anything different.“We’re still in this. We have a way to go. I think we’re clearly going in the right direction. Hope we stay that way.”TopicsAnthony FauciOmicron variantCoronavirusInfectious diseasesUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More
COVID-19 Policies Carry Implications for South Korea’s Presidential Election
On top of a highly contested presidential race and the election of People Power Party (PPP) candidate Yoon Suk-yeol on March 9, South Korea’s COVID-19 numbers are rapidly rising, with the country experiencing over 300,000 infections a day and record rates of COVID-related deaths. Despite the increase in cases, the South Korean government has removed several COVID-19 policies, including extending business closing times and removing the vaccine or negative test requirement to enter many public spaces.
Although South Korea has reduced its prior strict contact tracing policies, the percentage of critically ill patients is less than the country’s last peak in December 2021. The key question now is what the South Korean public thinks about the government’s COVID-19 response.
Getting the Public Behind the Fight on Misinformation
READ MORE
South Korea’s 2020 national assembly election was internationally praised for balancing ease of voting amid pandemic restrictions and provided a blueprint for other countries, with President Moon Jae-in’s administration largely praised for its efficient response to the pandemic. South Korea even allowed citizens who have tested positive to cast a ballot at the polls once they recovered, even if voting had officially ended.
However, with cases rising in late 2021, evaluations of the Moon administration’s handling have soured, although still hovering around 40% — the highest in the country’s democratic history for an outgoing president and similar to his vote share in 2017. Yet Yoon and the Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung, both polling under 40% in the run-up to the election, declined to outline any pandemic response plan until November, when there was already a shortage of hospital beds — likely a result of the government’s “living with COVID” plan.
Similarly, minor candidates have not presented clear COVID-19 policies. Even beyond the “living with COVID” strategies, candidates have not shared concrete plans to build back infrastructure after the public health crisis.
Embed from Getty Images
To understand South Korean evolving perceptions of COVID-19 policies, we conducted a pre-election web survey of 945 South Koreans on February 18-22 via Macromill Embrain using quota sampling on gender, region and age. We asked respondents to evaluate on a five-point Likert scale the following statement: “I am satisfied with the South Korean government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.”
We found, at best, mixed support for the government’s response, with overall disagreement outpacing agreement — 43.6% versus 35.8%. As before, perceptions deviate on party identification, with supporters of the ruling Democratic Party (DP) largely satisfied with the response (64.8%), while supporters of the main conservative party, the PPP, are largely dissatisfied (71.4%).
Supporters of the two smaller parties, the progressive Justice Party and the center-right People’s Party, showed responses that were more mixed, perhaps because candidates had not emphasized COVID-19 policies in campaign rhetoric. Regression analysis finds that women and older respondents are more supportive of COVID-19 policies, while after controlling for age, gender, education, income and political ideology, supporters of the DP were still more likely to evaluate pandemic policies favorably while PPP supporters were less likely to do so.
Noting this partisan divergence, we next wanted to identify whether views on COVID policy may have indirectly influenced support for one candidate over another. Regression analysis finds that even after controlling for demographic factors and party identification, satisfaction with COVID-19 policies negatively corresponds with voting for Yoon and positively for Lee.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
However, we also found that views of COVID-19 policies largely correspond with evaluations of President Moon’s job performance, questioning whether these measures were driving evaluations of Moon or whether perceptions now may simply be picking up sentiments regarding Moon irrespective of the actual policies. Further analysis shows that including evaluations of Moon’s performance in our earlier statistical models results in the COVID-19 evaluation failing to reach statistical significance.
Whereas COVID-19 policies helped Moon Jae-in’s party in 2020 win a clear majority in the national assembly, our evidence suggests evaluations now may have contributed to an anti-incumbency vote even as both of the major candidates lack clear policy prescriptions related to the pandemic. Regardless, President-elect Yoon will need to address a changing COVID-19 environment amid a fatigued and divided Korean public.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
The Great Fever Misconception
Yes or no? On or off? Zero or one? Binary is simple, and simple is good. It facilitates decision-making, especially in a crisis like a pandemic. After all, either you have COVID-19 or you don’t. If you have COVID, then you are infectious and should isolate to avoid spreading it. On the other hand, if you don’t have COVID, you can’t infect anyone else, no matter how closely you associate with them. Of course, the tricky part is determining whether or not someone has COVID.
The PCR test is the gold standard for determining if a person has COVID-19. It’s a very good test that gives us the yes-or-no binary information that we value so much for making decisions. Unfortunately, the test is not always readily available and it’s also expensive. And timing is critical. If you take the test too soon after you are infected, the virus may not have yet traveled to your nose where the sample is taken, and thus the result may be a false negative — you have COVID but the test indicates you don’t. Also, it often takes time in a laboratory to process the results — will you isolate or carry on while you’re waiting?
COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle
READ MORE
Finally, what would prompt you to get a COVID test? Perhaps some event prompts you or requires a test by policy, but otherwise, you might take a test because you feel sick. If so, you already know you may be infectious. In that case, a positive COVID test merely confirms what you already suspect, and you normally get that confirmation a couple of days too late to do any good. Despite our heavy reliance on testing, it’s not as simple or as timely as we would like for deciding when to isolate.
We’ve had another way to separate the healthy from the sick during the COVID-19 pandemic: symptoms. For example, if you have a fever, then you may be infectious. But temperature-based screening has not been very effective at all, and a big reason why is that the US government has historically defined fever as 100.4°F (38°C) or above. If a person’s body temperature is 100.3°F, then according to the government, that person does not have a fever. Does that make sense?
Unfortunately, one of the distinguishing characteristics of COVID is the tendency of many infected people to have mild or even unnoticeable symptoms, including only slightly elevated body temperature, below 100.4°F. So, the government’s definition of “fever,” although simple and binary, has only confused the situation. Some people who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 took their temperature, found it to be below 100.4°F and assumed they did not have a fever. So, they carried on with normal day-to-day activities, often infecting others. Temperature-based screening systems typically use the government’s 100.4°F fever threshold, and, as a result, failed to prevent entry by many infected persons. Relying on the government’s 100.4°F fever definition has contributed to the spread of COVID-19. Where did this government standard come from, how can it be improved, and why has the US resisted change?
© Douglas Dyer
Origins of 100.4°F
In 1868, a German physician, psychiatrist and medical professor named Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich published a paper describing his assessment that normal body temperature is relatively constant, varies from 97.9°F to 99.3°F (36.6°C to 37.4°C), and averages 98.6°F (37°C). He found that patients with a disease often exhibited a symptom of fever that he found to average at or above 100.4°F. He based these findings on 1 million temperature measurements for 25,000 patients.
For the time, this scientific result was quite remarkable, and it changed medicine forever because it gave physicians the newfound ability to objectively assess the presence and severity of many diseases. However, Wunderlich’s patients were mostly German rather than being from different cultures, his thermometer may have been less accurate than those we have today, and people are a little different now than they were then.
These are reasons to suspect that Wunderlich’s ideas of normal body temperature and fever are somewhat different today than they were in the mid-1800s. But, to be fair, Wunderlich observed differences in temperature based on many variables when healthy, and he advised that temperature averages have many “shades of gray.” In particular, Wunderlich noted that even smaller rises in temperature are cause for concern, and that there is no definite temperature threshold over which a person transitions from health to sickness. He said that any “elevation of the axillary [under the arm] temperature above 99.5°F (37.5°C) or any depression below 97.2°F (36.5°C) is always very suspicious.” He added: “But even when every precaution has been taken in making the observations, it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line to indicate by temperature the exact limits of health and disease.”
© Douglas Dyer
Today, clinical research suggests that Wunderlich’s findings should be revisited, that the normal temperature range varies by the individual, and that there is no arbitrary fever threshold that works for everyone. Yet, the US government and some medical experts still regard 98.6°F as normal body temperature and 100.4°F or above as a fever. For COVID019, this is simple, easy and, for most people, wrong.
Improving on 100.4°F as a Fever Threshold
If you’re interested in seeing if 100.4°F is an appropriate fever threshold for you, try taking your temperature. Use a normal, digital, under-the-tongue thermometer for at least 60 seconds. Make sure you haven’t consumed anything for 15 minutes — a hot or cold drink or food will change your measurement. Keep your mouth closed during the reading. Assuming you are healthy, if your temperature is below 98.6°F, then it’s a good bet that your fever threshold is under 100.4°F.
If you were to take your temperature every day, preferably in the morning when you first wake, you would see that your normal temperature varies in a range of one degree or so. For example, in the image below is the normal temperature data for a person we’ll call JRDA5.
© Douglas Dyer
From this graph, we can see that JRDA5’s normal body temperature varies from 96.6°F to 97.4°F when healthy, and you can expect your own normal temperature to vary also.
In modern medicine, a fever is understood to be a temperature elevation above a person’s normal range. This definition of fever is more accurate than an arbitrary fever threshold like 100.4°F that is based on population averages and data from 150 years ago. A person’s normal temperature range depends on many factors such as age, sex, nutrition and level of activity, and so different people will have different fever thresholds.
Almost always, a fever threshold defined as above your normal temperature range is below 100.4°F. Therefore, if we use this new definition, there is significant potential for identifying sick people using temperature-based screening. Relying on 100.4°F is insufficient for identifying mild, pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19.
Why the Government Has Resisted Changing the Definition of “Fever”
A pandemic is not the best time for complicated methods. Perhaps the US government chose to stick with 100.4°F for simplicity and consistency. But, in this pandemic, nothing has been simple. We’ve learned to take advantage of vaccines that need boosting, tests that need repeating and symptoms that keep changing. People can figure out their normal temperature range and their own personal fever threshold if that means effective screening. Having a fever or not is still binary, even if we define fever as above your normal range. It’s still pretty simple.
Elevated temperature is not definitive proof you have COVID-19. We all like certainty, and the PCR test will remain the gold standard for COVID. But we don’t need certainty to make a decision to isolate. A fever should prompt isolation, even though it may not be caused by COVID. The next step is to get tested and then wait for the results. We can stop the pandemic if people isolate if they get a fever. Fever is the most timely indicator we may be infectious.
Asymptomatic cases may not exhibit any elevated temperature, so we cannot depend on temperature screening anyway. It’s possible that there are some people infected with COVID-19 who do not have any fever, perhaps because their immune system doesn’t work at all. However, we know that many asymptomatic cases are accompanied by elevated body temperature lower than 100.4°F. We can catch those people using the more correct definition of fever. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
People hate change and the government is no different. It takes a lot to pass federal legislation and to modify federal regulations. But the government’s 100.4°F fever threshold isn’t working. The effort to change will help us control the pandemic.
How Redefining “Fever” Helps
Since the omicron variant of COVID-19 emerged, we’ve seen increased demand for testing, with many people standing in line for hours waiting to get a test. In the United States, the government has been ordering more tests to address the shortages. However, the demand for testing can evidently overrun our testing resources. By using a more accurate definition of “fever,” people will have a better idea of when they need to get tested. Today, about 75% of tests come back negative. We have clinical evidence that fever and other readily available health data can predict test results. By redefining “fever,” we can make testing more efficient.
We can also monitor our health every day, conveniently, in our own homes. We can’t afford to give everyone a daily PCR test, and hardly anyone wants that anyway. In contrast, it’s easy, fast and affordable to take our temperature every day. It’s a smart, safe way to help keep our friends and family safe and do our part to fight the pandemic. A lot of people would self-monitor if they knew it would help.
The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 evidently mutates easily, giving rise to variants, and we don’t expect that to change. It’s possible there are already variants that are not caught by current tests. Redefining “fever” can help identify cases that PCR tests miss. So far, fever is a symptom of all variants. More broadly, fever is a symptom of many other infectious illnesses, such as the flu. Isolating when you have a fever is appropriate for new variants and other viruses to help prevent the spread and keep everyone safer.
It’s high time for the government to redefine “fever” as body temperature above a person’s normal, healthy range. With a more accurate definition, temperature-based screening can be a powerful new tool for fighting the pandemic — and one well-suited to use by anyone, at home and in time to make a difference. Americans want to help fight the pandemic. It’s about time the government helps them do just that.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
Rowing Together to Tackle Inequality
Beyond the health consequences of the pandemic, evidence shows that the COVID-19 crisis may result in increasing the levels of poverty and inequality for years, if not generations. This outcome is not inevitable. However, insufficient responses to the crisis have deepened inequalities both between and within countries and intensified public discontent, paving the way to “social turmoil and unrest,” says research Bruno Valerio.
COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle
READ MORE
The costs of the pandemic are being borne disproportionately by poorer categories of society since low-income households are more exposed to health risks and more likely to experience job losses and sharp declines in wellbeing. At the same time, the pandemic has been a boon for the wealthy. In response to the economic collapse in March and April 2020, central banks injected enormous amounts of liquidity into financial markets, keeping asset prices high while economic activity slowed down. Some of the biggest winners were those with high stakes in the technology sector.
Against this background, Kara Tan Bhala, the founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics, suggests using the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. “The Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality,” she says. “Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil).”
But how do we tackle inequality? According to economist Etienne Perrot, “the adequate responses must … address both property [ownership] rights through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition.” Other policy responses may include “reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements,” as Andrew Cornford points out.
Embed from Getty Images
To implement these policies, the first condition is that inequalities should be on the political agenda, which is not the case everywhere, as professor Yuriy Temirov illustrates with the case of Ukraine. But policy measures alone are not sufficient to reduce inequalities. They have to be complemented by a cultural, transformative process for learning to “row together” (Fratelli tutti), as Domingo Sugranyes of the Pablo VI Foundation says, to increase our socioeconomic resilience.
By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski
Note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: Inequalities seem to accelerate in every part of the world due to COVID-19 and other issues. Unlike the climate debate, in social issues, we do not have a proper threshold for catastrophe. This leads to a possible overestimation of social resilience and leaves the issue as such largely untackled. Drawing on the particularities of your region or on your area of expertise, what should/can be done?
“… perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities … ”
“The pandemic only reveals perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities. Pope Francis had alerted the international community as soon as the first vaccines appeared. The causes of these glaring social inequalities mix the institutional side through the right of property, the politics increasingly tempted by nationalism, and the spiritual bathed in the materialistic individualism of modernity. The adequate responses must therefore address both property right through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition, distinguishing between the elite and the financial success.”
Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)
“… the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country is to economic upheaval… ”
“In the global climate crisis, anything over 2°C above the average pre-industrial temperature leads to unmitigated disaster. In a similar vein, I suggest we use the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. The Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality. Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil). Of course, these watershed levels need further research, but it would be enlightening to have an idea of the income inequality thresholds of social disaster.”
Kara Tan Bhala —president and founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics
“… public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe … ”
“Despite its importance, GDP as an indicator should no longer be the only way we measure economic success. Fairer economy would mean tackling health inequalities and getting to grips with issues that prevent individuals from certain ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds meeting their full potential. We need to embrace means of improving wellbeing and advancing social mobility, build on promoting social inclusion as well as addressing poverty. New plans must be put in place to achieve a more sustainable economy in a more equal and socially just society, and this cannot just be an aspiration — it must be seen as critical to our survival. In recognizing the profound challenges, public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe. The coronavirus is still alive, and risk lies in whether this will be possible.”
Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
“… rowing together (Fratelli tutti) …”
“I don’t see a theoretical answer to this extremely vast question. My reaction can only be in terms of (modest) action-oriented commitment: ‘rowing together’ (Fratelli tutti), i.e., trying to identify social projects of high solidarity value, which help people to emerge from poverty on their own capabilities, and look for means — money, goods, time — in order to increase the scope and impact of such communities. We need business and people in business to get much more decidedly involved in these kinds of projects. This is, among many other organizations, what we try to do with The Voluntary Solidarity Fund (VSF International) and VSF Spain. Everybody is welcome to join.”
Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group
“… an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax … ”
“With the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap between the rich and the poor, in particular the income gap, has increased as Pope Francis, among others, has stated on several occasions. It is undeniable that the trend had already started several decades ago. However, with COVID-19, inequalities have reached record levels that do necessitate strong internal reforms. If no actions will be taken, such as an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax, the possibility of social turmoil and unrest will be inevitable. In Italy, political parties are literally unable to agree and set the slightest kind of agenda for a proper patrimoniale (wealth tax or asset tax), preferring to keep the country in an extremely dangerous status quo.”
Valerio Bruno —researcher in politics
“… fiscal measures, transparency, control of cross-border capital movements … ”
“Much attention has been given to the wealth as well as the income dimension of the inequalities — the associated rents of the minority at one end, and the much lower and often stagnating incomes of the remainder. The latter comprises not only the working class, but also parts of the middle class. Much commentary has also concerned the opportunities to hide wealth — and thus reduce tax exposure — provided by cross-border financial liberalization and offshore financial centers. Policy responses to the inequalities should include fiscal measures, including improved taxation of the wealth of individuals and firms, reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements, and changes in legal definitions designed to facilitate controls over firms’ domestic and cross-border access to different economic activities and industries and thus to restrict regulatory arbitrage and opaqueness in firms’ operations.”
Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services
“… imaginative countermeasures of income … ”
“The fundamental dynamic of any economy is summed up in the dictum, ‘To those who have shall be given and they shall have more than they can use, and from those who have not shall be taken even what they have.’ COVID also has set it in motion. Where the effects are beneficial — e.g., the reduction in travel by air — it should be encouraged. Further good news is that the deprivation inflicted by COVID on the deprived has been met — at least in places like Geneva — not by the usual blame, scorn and exclusion, but by imaginative countermeasures of income support and new forms of communication like Zoom.”
Edouard Dommen — specialist in economic ethics, former university professor and researcher at the UNCTAD and president of Geneva’s Ecumenical Workshop in Theology.
Embed from Getty Images
“… first we have to think about youth … ”
“The social deprivation problems are persistent, and this fact routinizes somehow their existence and hinders the definition of a social resilience threshold. Differentiated priorities emerged in South/Eastern Europe after the successive waves of crisis, but first we have to think about youth since no country can sustain without giving hope to its members through a micro/macro strategy that includes: i) an immediate recovery plan with emergency income support for the vulnerable groups; ii) long-lasting work-related policies and investments on youth employment (work-based training, tax reliefs for innovative enterprises); iii) strategies of sharing the risks with interregional cooperation and job retention schemes; and iv) protection and support of childhood integrity (tackling invisible work and poverty with financial benefits for low-income families and proper child/health-care, along with future-centered support, such as home learning environment and early schooling interventions).”
Christos Tsironis —associate professor of social theory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
“… in Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon … ”
“In Ukraine, social inequality has two primary sources: the legacy of the ‘socialist’ totalitarian past and deformed oligarchic capitalism. At the same time, the initial period of transformation with the exacerbation of the problems of social inequality has dragged on dangerously. From 1991 to 2014, the domination of the interests of oligarchic groups over national interests acted as a brake on reforms. After the Revolution of Dignity, there was a political will to implement unpopular reforms, but they had to be carried out in conditions of the population’s fatigue from reforms, in the realities of Russian aggression. The promotion of reforms by servants of the people is complicated by populism. In Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon. At this stage of transformation, this issue cannot be a priority; the authorities do not have a correct understanding of the hierarchy of priorities, and society’s perceptions of equality/inequality are distorted by collectivism and paternalism.
Yuriy Temirov —associate professor, dean of the Faculty of History and International Relations at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University
*[An earlier version of this article was published by From Virus to Vitamin before the Ukraine War began.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
