Trump anunciou hoje que haverá vacina para os norte-americanos no dia 1 de Novembro, e avisou os Estados americanos para estarem prontos para administrar a vacina antes das eleições.
Dois dias depois, no dia 3 de Novembro, daqui a dois meses, portanto, haverá eleições e Trump tudo fará, é entendimento corrente, para ser reeleito nem que para atingir esse objectivo denuncie a ilegalidade das eleições.
Se essa situação acontecer, e é muito provável que aconteça se Biden vencer por margem escassa nos estados que decidem o resultado - swing states - os EUA poderão entrar em situação juridicamente turbulenta e, consequentemente, imprevisível. Como em países do terceiro mundo a gatinhar para a democracia.
Ontem, Trump, incitou eleitores da Carolina do Norte a votarem duas vezes: uma por correspondência e outra presencialmente, para demonstrar, segundo ele, que o voto por correspondência é fraudulento. Votar duas vezes é crime, mas que importa a Trump, e, sobretudo aos fiéis de Trump, porque são eles que o elegem que o seu candidato incite ao crime? - cf. aqui.
Segundo as notícias, dezenas de dirigentes republicanos anunciam o apoio a Joe Biden, mas não será deste modo que Trump não será reeleito. O populista não depende dos apoios partidários mas da forma como os seus fiéis se manterão inabaláveis no apoio a Trump mesmo que ele minta e corrompa os princípios democráticos de cada vez que abra a boca.
Transcrevo hoje publicado no WP por me parecer interessante como memória futura.
Governments have failed to unite in the fight against covid-19.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the race to develop a vaccine
against the novel coronavirus. Rather than consolidate efforts, many
countries are striking out on their own.
The fragmented forces of vaccine nationalism won another victory this week: U.S. officials told The Washington Post
that the United States would not participate in the Covid-19 Vaccines
Global Access (Covax) Facility, a global effort to help develop and
distribute a coronavirus vaccine backed by the World Health Organization.
The U.S. absence is a major blow for a project seeking to overcome unequal access to immunization. More than 170 countries are in talks to participate in Covax. Germany, Japan and the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, have backed it.
But America is not alone in going it alone. Following the U.S. example,
many other countries are pursuing unilateral plans, focused on producing
a vaccine for priority use or buying up potential
vaccines from other
nations.
White
House spokesman Judd Deere said Tuesday the United States would not be
“constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt
World Health Organization and China.” Instead, the Trump administration
has doubled down on Operation Warp Speed, its multibillion-dollar effort to administer a domestic vaccine as early as the fall.
Russia, too, has rejected the Covax plan. Instead, it is already rolling out its Sputnik V vaccine, which it has dubbed the “the first registered vaccine against COVID-19,” for teachers and health-care workers — despite warnings that it was rushed through testing.
In China, where the People’s Liberation Army has played a central role in the development
of vaccines, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Wednesday
that Beijing supported the aims of Covax and would coordinate with it.
But she stopped short of making a commitment to the project.
Covax’s backers say they are still optimistic, pointing to support from other rich nations. But with deadlines extended and terms shifting, the project may not end up being quite what many had envisaged.
It’s worth considering why vaccine nationalism seems to be winning.
Cooperative,
international efforts are not famous for finding speedy solutions. Some
countries probably reason that they could join Covax later if it
succeeds.
And
if a country develops a working vaccine domestically or preemptively
buys up millions of doses, it gets first access. For some wealthy
nations, the benefits outweigh the risks or moral problems.
The United States has already invested $10 billion
in candidate vaccines, according to Health and Human Services Secretary
Alex Azar, a relative bargain compared to the trillions of dollars
spent on financial bailouts so far, and one with the potential to affect
the dynamics of the upcoming presidential election.
If a country can develop a vaccine, it also has the opportunity to
distribute it. For China, the initial epicenter of the pandemic, it
would be a chance to restore global standing. The same could be argued
for Russia and the United States, both run by leaders who are unpopular globally.
Some
nations may struggle to navigate this rocky geopolitical terrain.
Mexico, for example, is pushing ahead with a plan to not only cooperate
with the Covax program, but to ally itself with programs in foreign
nations from Cuba to France, Deputy Foreign Minister Martha Delgado told Reuters.
By
some reckonings, the vaccine rivalry is healthy, perhaps even ideal.
“Competition between nations has, historically, often driven innovation.
That was certainly true of the Cold War space race. Or the scientific
breakthroughs — from radar to rockets — of World War II,” Matthew Lynn wrote for the Spectator this week.
Most who study vaccines do not share this view. The
space race may have led to “one giant leap for mankind” on the Moon,
but few forget that the astronaut who took the step was American. It’s
not hard to see how poorer nations could be left behind in the vaccine
race, too.
The Wall Street Journal reported
Tuesday that a handful of rich nations had already struck deals for
nearly 4 billion doses of coronavirus vaccines in development, taking up
almost all of the world’s capacity and leaving little for poor nations,
despite the rapid spread of the virus in the developing world.
The
supply problems have only begun. “Vaccine supply chains contain some
unusual links, including horseshoe crab blood, shark liver oil and an
enzyme that’s one of the world’s most expensive products,” economists
Scott Duke Kominers and Alex Tabarrok wrote for Bloomberg last month. “Other links rely on novel manufacturing processes that have not yet been implemented at scale.”
Immunization programs have a mixed success rate. Smallpox was eradicated with the help of a successful vaccine, but polio and measles
still linger despite working vaccines. The huge number of cases
globally and the “novel” nature of the coronavirus would complicate
eradication efforts. Rushed, potentially faulty vaccines would have the
potential to strengthen anti-vaccination movements.
Covax is
one hope for dealing with some of these problems, but an imperfect one.
It requires wealthy nations to put up about $18 billion in purchases for
about a dozen experimental vaccines, with the aim to ensure first
access for the world’s most vulnerable. Under the plan, nations could
still make bilateral deals if they wanted to.
But
the United States and others still rejected the plan, essentially
betting on Operation Warp Speed or other national measures. In an
interview this month with IAVI Report, a scientific magazine on virus
research, vaccine expert Seth Berkley, the chief executive of GAVI and one of the backers of Covax, said he worried about a world in which governments provide vaccines for their own people alone.
“If
you have massive outbreaks of virus circulating, adapting to humans,
mutating, and then spreading, you’re never going to solve this,” he
said.
----
c/p Economist
A covid-struck, confused and polarised poll
----
c/p Economist
A covid-struck, confused and polarised poll
Donald Trump is very likely to challenge the results of the US electionIf he does so it will be bad, quite possibly very bad indeed
In his final debate
with Hillary Clinton in 2016, Donald Trump refused to commit himself to
accepting the results of the coming election. The following day he made
his position clearer. “I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election,” he said in mock solemnity—before
adding, with finger-wagging emphasis: “If I win.” The stubby finger
levelled itself at the crowd, which erupted into cheers; the
not-yet-president grinned.
President
Trump went on to win with 304 Electoral College votes to Mrs Clinton’s
227, and so how he would in fact have reacted had things gone the other
way remains a matter of speculation. This year there appears to be a
strong chance that he will not win; The Economist’s
election-forecasting model currently puts his chances at one in seven.
Mr Trump, though, denies any possibility that he could lose a fair
contest: “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the
election is rigged,” he told his followers in August. There can be no
real doubt that, should he indeed lose, he would claim that the election
was stolen.
No comments:
Post a Comment