Unintended consequences of vaccine mandates

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good | BMJ Global Health 7:5 - Kevin Bardosh, Alex de Figueiredo, Rachel Gur-Arie, James Doidge, Trudo Lemmens, Salmaan Keshavjee, Janice E Graham, Stefan Baral:

Abstract

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. 

While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. 

Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.

[...]

Conclusion

The adoption of new vaccination policies has provoked backlash, resistance and polarisation. It is important to emphasise that these policies are not viewed as ‘incentives’ or ‘nudges’ by substantial proportions of populations  especially in marginalised, underserved or low COVID-19-risk groups. Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care or social life unless they get vaccinated — especially in light of the limitations with the current vaccines — is arguably in tension with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies. While public support consolidated behind these policies in many countries, we should acknowledge that ethical frameworks were designed to ensure that rights and liberties are respected even during public health emergencies.

Vaccination policies can be an important tool in the promotion of the right to health, but they need to be proportionate and designed to achieve a clearly defined goal. Some of those supporting current restrictions based on vaccination status seem to accept too easily that these measures are indeed proportionate; that they are not more restrictive than necessary; that they are effective in preventing transmission and protecting the healthcare system from collapse; and that there are no options available other than punitive mandates, passports and segregated restrictions. As illustrated above, we believe that current vaccine policies have failed on these fronts and are no longer fit for purpose.

We encourage social and behavioural scientists, bioethicists, epidemiologists, legal scholars, and others to assess the benefits and harms of COVID-19 vaccination policies, along with wider open multidisciplinary discussion and debate. Empirical assessments may or may not validate the concerns presented in this paper—but their generation is critical in engagement with politicians, scientists, and organisations to reconsider current policies affecting those who remain unvaccinated as well as those who vaccinated due to threats and pressure. COVID-19 will not be the last public health emergency and it remains critical that we understand the reasons these approaches were adopted and provide robust evidence to improve future policymaking in times of health emergencies.135 If not, the proclivity for mandates, passports, restrictions, fines and punishments is likely to become an accepted policy response for the next pandemic irrespective of whether such policies are truly effective, ethical and socially harmful.

If current policies are to continue, public health-associated bureaucracies and society will have to increase coercion to address current and future resistance and, in the process, come to leverage strategies more consistent with policing than public health. We may also see political forces double down and use people who have chosen not to get vaccinated as a collective, psychological and political tool to scapegoat and reinforce a false notion of safety among vaccinated people as they yearn to resume social and economic life. Policymakers should reflect on the necessity of enforcing what is essentially a new two-tier, segregated social system and how this will affect different social groups now and into the future—behaviourally, politically and socioeconomically—as well as the impact of such policies on the integrity of science and public health itself.

There are other options to address the pandemic and it is not too late to return to non-coercive public health measures, including pro-social language and community leadership for vaccination, especially to protect high-risk groups. Future investments in public health capacity, especially health providers who build relationships of trust working in communities, will be essential to engage in positive reforms. Improving data transparency, media independence and broad public debate and scrutiny about COVID-19 vaccine policies will also be essential to maintain population trust, help people better understand the risks and benefits of the continued use of current vaccines, and to inform research on improvements and future policies.

Read more: https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 

The case against vaccine passes

Opinion: Why vaccine passports won't slow COVID spread, will hurt the poor and threaten medical ethics | National Post -  Alanna Golden, Gil Nimni, Sandra Rao & Neil Rau:

September 09, 2021 - "COVID-19 ... Vaccine certificates have been rolled out across [Canada] with participation from Quebec, British Columbia, and now Ontario. The federal government has earmarked $1 billion for their implementation. Individuals will be required to demonstrate proof of vaccination status in order to access 'non-essential' services. While it is an important societal goal to maximize vaccination coverage in adults, it is also important to consider whether the end justifies the means....

"Vaccine certificates impose a significant burden on the population. There will be ongoing costs to taxpayers to maintain this system, and businesses will bear costs for implementation and oversight, and may be subjected to fines. The additional uptake in vaccination rates in those who are either unvaccinated or without natural immunity from previous infection is unclear.... In a rush to implement this system, governments have been unclear about how they will measure efficacy, which implies there may not be a clear plan on when to scale back.... With the precedent for vaccine certificates established, there may be a desire to include other seasonal viruses, excluding increasingly larger segments of society from 'non-essential' services.

"Can we stop transmission with vaccine certificates? Probably not. The latest data suggest that vaccination reduces transmission by around 50 per cent at six months with evidence of further waning thereafter. Vaccines may help to slow spread of the virus, but they will not achieve the kind of herd immunity we see with such diseases as measles. Vaccine certificates may offer a false sense of reassurance to those who are vaccinated, if the belief is that they cannot contract or transmit the virus.... Vaccine certificates for 'non-essential' services will not touch industries hit hardest in previous waves, such as warehouses and factories. Implementation of targeted approaches in at-risk workplaces makes more sense, with the deployment of mobile vaccination units, regular point of care testing and protected pay for those with symptoms or high-risk exposures....

"Those who are fully vaccinated may be amongst those denied access if they do not have a printer or mobile device, or if they have forgotten their documentation at home. This will especially impact the poor, those who are homeless, those with developmental delays or those who suffer from cognitive impairment. Newcomers will be subject to another set of vaccines if those approved in their home country are not recognized here. Businesses will be asked to deny services, sometimes to long-standing, loyal customers, at the expense of lost income desperately needed after months of forced closures. In addition, we can expect the workloads of numerous providers (ie. doctors, religious leaders) to grow exponentially with the additional tasks of proving vaccination status or providing exemptions....

"What are the unintended consequences? Let’s take the example of fitness gyms, which have been deemed 'non-essential.' One of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness is obesity. Many people rely on gyms, especially during the winter months, to access physical activity and maintain their ideal body weight. Those who live in apartment dwellings may not have access to green spaces for exercise. Thus, by barring access to gyms, we are restricting physical activity, which in turn contributes to increasing rates of obesity and greater risk for severe disease.

"Ironically, by excluding the unvaccinated from common social institutions, we run the risk of congregation of unvaccinated individuals outside of these institutions. When this does occur, it is more likely to be without mitigation measures. COVID-19 is spread through social networks, meaning that this action could increase the number of infections circulating amongst unvaccinated people, increasing adverse outcomes.... The unvaccinated are disproportionately of lower socio-economic status, ethnic minorities and children. Many minority groups have legitimate reasons to distrust the medical establishment.... Some are unable to get vaccinated because they cannot afford time off work for vaccination and post-vaccine side effects. It is imperative that we understand the unintended potential health equity impacts of vaccine certificates on specific population groups....

"Perhaps the greatest oversight with vaccine certificates is the lack of recognition of natural immunity. Those who have been previously infected may not wish to receive vaccination. This conviction is supported by recent data that natural immunity is as good [as] or better than vaccine-induced immunity. If this is true, why are we excluding those with durable protection from society? Moreover, a lack of acknowledgement of protection by way of natural immunity may serve to reinforce the optics of pharmaceutical involvement in policy-making.

"Are vaccine certificates ethical? One of the most sacred principles in medical ethics is autonomy, meaning that an individual has the right to decide what happens to their body.... Even the most well-informed individual cannot provide informed consent if their 'choice' is coerced. Vaccine certificates render the individual in an impossible place of having to choose vaccination or loss of employment and exclusion from society. This impossible 'choice' forces the hand of those in this predicament and ultimately results in consent under duress.... Given that we have exceeded numerous vaccine targets and offered protection to those at greatest risk, we should make every effort at this time to maintain patient autonomy and guide with openness rather than exclusion."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-why-vaccine-passports-wont-slow-covid-spread-will-hurt-the-poor-and-threaten-medical-ethics

Vaccines and variants

by George J. Dance

When in comes to Covid, a lot can change in a month. In the U.S. the UK, and Canada, the pandemic appeared to be finally over by the beginning of July: cases and deaths were dropping back to last summer's low levels, while growing levels of vaccination seemed to indicate they would stay that way. Now Covid is resurgent, with cases and deaths rebounding in all three countries, and indications that the vaccinated, too, are now spreading it. 

What happened? A few brave souls question whether vaccine effectiveness may be waning; but the majority consensus puts the blame on the Delta variant, now the dominant coronavirus strain throughout the world. But what caused that variant? Where did it come from? Most importantly, for some, whom do we blame for it? 

By this point it has become standard to blame the unvaccinated for the entire pandemic, and the Delta variant is no exception. “Unvaccinated people are potential variant factories,” William Schaffner (a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center) told CNN in July – a claim that CNN shortened in its headline to the punchier (but misleading) "Unvaccinated people are ‘variant factories". In that punchier form, the meme was headlined widely in both mainstream and social media. Some, like Canada's Global News, went so far as to claim that merely being unvaccinated makes a person "a risk" to others: "'Variant factory’: The unvaccinated pose a risk to more than just themselves.".  

Yet going beyond the headlines told a different story. The Global article, for example, quoted Winnipeg epidemiologist Cynthia Carr, whose message was different:

"It’s a good, succinct term that I hope catches people’s attention: ‘variant factory,'" Cynthia Carr tells 680 CJOB.

What is that?

Carr says it could be the body of anyone who gets COVID-19.

"The virus cannot live and thrive outside of a living cell – it needs that cell to survive." 

Note that: A "variant factory" can be any living person infected with Covid. Even double-vaccinated people can be infected with Covid, since some double-vaccinated people have clearly died with it. Every living person, vaccinated or not, infected or not, is a "potential variant factory," including those who like to throw the term around so much.

If not the unvaccinated, who or what is responsible for the variants? Could it be the vaccination program itself? That theory is becoming popular in some alternative media and social media, including the expected fever swamps where bizarre conspiracy theories breed. That is no reason to reject the theory, but it is reason to dismiss those accounts and look for a more credible source. 

Back in May, GDPA found and blogged what looks like the original source of the claim, a video interview (in French) with the 2008 Nobel Prize winner (yes, in Medicine), Luc Montagnier. In the account we blogged, Montagnier was quoted as saying "that 'it is the vaccination that is creating the variants',... 'There are antibodies, created by the vaccine' that force the virus to 'find another solution' or die. This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that 'are a production and result from the vaccination.'" 

I can read French, with difficulty, but there is no way I can follow a spoken video. So I had to turn to my own limited knowledge of viruses, most of which I have picked up only this year, to try to piece out an explanation on my own.

Because it has no DNA, a virus is not genetically stable; it reproduces by copying its own RNA, and in the process numerous 'copying errors' can happen. Those last give rise to mutations. Most mutations are suboptimal compared with the original strain, and quickly die out. Occasionally, though, a mutation can confer an advantage on the new strain: for example, it may incubate in a shorter time, meaning it can reproduce faster than antibodies can eliminate it. (The Delta variant is said to incubate in four days, versus six for the original strain.) In that case the mutation can survive and even thrive in an infected person, and may even displace the original strain (though that last is unlikely, given the original strain's head start). 

When someone infected with a new mutation (A) infects an unvaccinated person (B), then both the original strain and mutation can be passed on. Given that the original strain is more likely to be dominant, it is more likely to be the one passed on, though of course it is logically possible for an unvaccinated person B to catch both. 

If person B is vaccinated, though, there are three possibilities. Every vaccine has an efficacy of more than 0% and less than 100%; meaning that it will suppress some (in fact, most) infections, but fail to suppress others. Person B's vaccine may suppress both strains, fail to suppress both strains, or suppress only one. In that third case above, the vaccine will be suppressing the less infectious original strain, meaning that person B gets infected only by the more infectious mutation. If person B goes on to infect persons C, D, and E, they will also be infected by the new mutation. 

The result over time will be a growing number of people spreading a new, more infectious strain of the virus through the community. Since the new strain incubates faster, and more people are susceptible to it, it will spread faster than the original strain, will infect more people, and can even become dominant in the community. At that point the mutation becomes a variant of concern. Vaccination has not produced the new variant – random mutation did that – but by suppressing its less infectious competition, vaccination has selected for the new variant.

That was my theory, which I dubbed "artificial selection". However, as I have noted, I am no scientist, and my reading in the field is limited. So how to test my own assumptions? Who better than a scientist challenging Montagier's theory? Fortunately, I was able to find one of those: Peter Stoilov, PhD, an associate professor of biochemistry who leads the variant sequencing efforts in West Virginia, and who describes Montagnier’s theory as 'completely bonkers.'         

Here is Dr. Stoilov's lengthy debunking, from an interview with the website healthline.com:

"The fact on which he bases his argument is that mutations can change epitopes that the immune system has learned from the vaccination, and this gives some selective advantage to the virus. Consequently, in his mind, this would ‘create’ new, more dangerous variants," he said.

However, Stoilov pointed out that "selection does not cause new variants to emerge; it merely selects some of them."

"Mutations and variants occur randomly and independently of vaccination or any other selection process. In fact, they may precede selection by years or millennia," Stoilov said....

Stoilov said it’s a well-established fact that selection does not cause mutations.

"The facts that Dr. Montagnier ignores are that, while vaccination may select for some variants, it is still effective at suppressing them and the overall effect is a dramatic reduction of infections and a milder disease when the virus manages to break through the vaccine," he said....

If vaccines were creating new dangerous variants, then Stoilov said we would see proportionately more new variants emerging over time among vaccinated populations than with unvaccinated parts of the world.

There would also be a lot more diversity among the virus variants in countries with high vaccination rates, and increased disease spread and mortality among vaccinated people.

"We see nothing of that. In fact, we see exactly the opposite," Stoilov said. "In places with high vaccination rates, the case numbers and mortality are dropping; virus diversity is limited to few (one to three) variants; and, so far, no new variants are emerging among vaccinated populations." 

Stoilov does a good job rebutting the idea that the vaccine is causing the mutations that become variants. But his arguments do nothing to refute the theory that mass vaccination is selecting for them. Rather, he freely admits that "vaccines may select for some variants" (while pointing out that this "selection does not cause new variants to emerge; it merely selects some of them") – which is exactly what I had already concluded. 

None of the above is a reason to stop vaccination, as Montagnier is suppose to have urged. So far, vaccination has been effective at reducing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths; on these terms, mass Covid vaccination has been a success. Artificial selection is merely an unintended consequence of that success: precisely by stopping most (but not all) infections, vaccination selects for more infectious variants. If the result is less, not more, severe injury or death per person – and so far that is the case – then vaccination has to be seen as an unalloyed good. 

So no policy changes follow from adoption of the artificial selection hypothesis. All that follows is increased awareness that in epidemiology, as in every other field of human action, policy changes will have unintended consequences, of which the policy makers are unaware and unable to anticipate beforehand, much less adequately explain or deal with afterwards. 

RSV in NZ: virus running rampant in Kiwi kids

New Zealand children falling ill in high numbers due to Covid ‘immunity debt’ | The Guardian - Tess McClure:

July 8, 2021 - "New Zealand hospitals are experiencing the payoff of 'immunity debt' created by Covid-19 lockdowns, with wards flooded by babies with a potentially-deadly respiratory virus, doctors have warned. Wellington has 46 children currently hospitalised for respiratory illnesses including respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. A number are infants, and many are on oxygen. Other hospitals are also experiencing a rise in cases that are straining their resources – with some delaying surgeries or converting playrooms into clinical space.

"RSV is a common respiratory illness. In adults, it generally only produces very mild symptoms – but it can make young children extremely ill, or even be fatal. The size and seriousness of New Zealand’s outbreak is likely being fed by what some paediatric doctors have called an 'immunity debt' – where people don’t develop immunity to other viruses suppressed by Covid lockdowns, causing cases to explode down the line....

"The 'immunity debt' phenomenon occurs because measures like lockdowns, hand-washing, social distancing and masks... also suppress the spread of other illnesses that transmit in a similar way, including the flu, common cold, and lesser-known respiratory illnesses.... In New Zealand, lockdowns last winter led to a 99.9% reduction in flu cases and a 98% reduction in RSV - and near-eliminated the spike of excess deaths New Zealand usually experiences during winter.

"'This positive collateral effect in the short term is welcome, as it prevents additional overload of the healthcare system,' a collective of French doctors wrote in a May 2021 study of immunity debt. But in the long term, it can create problems of its own: if bacterial and viral infections aren’t circulating among children, they don’t develop immunity, which leads to larger outbreaks down the line ... 'The lack of immune stimulation … induced an “immunity debt” which could have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control and [public health intervientions] are lifted,' the doctors wrote. 'The longer these periods of "viral or bacterial low-exposure" are, the greater the likelihood of future epidemics.'

"New Zealand has reported nearly 1,000 RSV cases in the past five weeks, according to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The usual average is 1,743 over the full 29-week winter season. Australia is also experiencing a surge, with overcrowded Victoria hospitals also hit by unusually high rates of RSV'....

"The current outbreak is already stretching New Zealand’s hospitals. At Middlemore hospital in Auckland, a playroom has been converted into a clinical space with 11 special care baby cots. Health boards in Auckland and Canterbury have postponed surgeries to divert resources into children’s wards. A number of hospitals have asked children under 12 not to visit, to try to avoid spreading the virus. John Tait, chief medical officer for the Wellington area’s district health boards said the region had 46 children hospitalised, including two in intensive care....

"Usually, people experience near-universal exposure to RSV as children, Baker said, with most exposed in their first year of life.... While RSV is a common cause of winter hospitalisation of children, elderly people and people with suppressed immune systems are also vulnerable."

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-children-falling-ill-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt

Democrats' PRO Act could take down Uber

The Democrats Just Reintroduced a Labor Law that Would Destroy Uber — And It Could Actually Pass This Time | Foundation for Economic Education - Brad Polumbo: 

February 8, 2021 - "With control of Congress and the White House, Democrats are making labor policy one of their first priorities. Ironically enough, that’s actually bad news for independent contractors and gig economy workers across the country.

"The legislation at the core of their agenda is the PRO [Protecting the Right to Organize] Act, which Democrats ... re-introduced with sponsors including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer. Among many other things, the bill would severely restrict the legal definition of independent contractors..... It’s modeled after a similar but highly controversial California bill, AB 5, that likewise forced the reclassification of independent contractors. 

"President Biden supported AB 5 at the time, and is on the record supporting the PRO Act, too. And now that Democrats control Congress, it could pass the House and find support from the White House. The only question would be whether it could make it through the closely-divided Senate.... 

"The PRO Act ... would make illegal any independent contractor arrangement where the worker provides services within 'the usual course of the business of the employer,' meaning jobs like Uber drivers, Doordash drivers, Instacart grocery deliverers, and more could not exist as we know them. There are roughly 10.6 million independent contractors in the US, accounting for 6.9 percent of all employment. Some of these workers might not be affected by the law and some others may get hired on as full-time as a result. But there’s little doubt that millions more would find themselves unemployed.

"For example, Uber alone employs more than 1 million drivers in the US. It’s nearly certain they would all lose their jobs under the PRO Act, because Uber already runs a loss, not a profit, and adding an independent contractor as a full staff member counts roughly $3,625 per driver. Basic math tells you that most of these workers would end up being let go; Uber could even go under. After all, the California legislation nearly forced Uber and Lyft to shut down operations in the Golden State altogether until a last-minute ballot referendum modified the law. 

"Uber is just one company and one example. But freelance workers such as journalists, photographers, florists, musicians and more all lost work in California under legislation similar to the PRO Act. 

"The authors of AB 5 and the PRO Act likely earnestly believed they were going to help workers.... But the ugly results of their policy naivete will leave many like them unemployed instead.... The Democrats’ latest labor proposal is a case study in unintended consequences, which inevitably plague big-government interventions into a vast and diverse economy.

"'Economic policies need to be analyzed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than the hopes that inspired them,' ... free-market economist Thomas Sowell once wrote. 'The programs that are being labeled for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors hope them to have'.... 

"Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer clearly haven’t thought this through. If the PRO Act becomes law, it won’t help independent workers—it will eliminate their jobs or strip them of the flexibility that attracted them to the gig economy in the first place."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/the-democrats-just-reintroduced-a-labor-law-that-would-destroy-uber-and-it-could-actually-pass-this-time/

Air travel shutdowns disrupt medical supply chain

Drug industry warns that cuts to passenger airline service have put medical supplies at risk | Washington Post - Ian Duncan:

May 2, 2020 - "Dramatic cuts in passenger airline service in the face of the coronavirus pandemic have had an unintended consequence: disrupting the supply chain for the pharmaceutical industry, which relies on room in the bellies of passenger jets to quickly move drugs around the world. The loss of the cargo space has revealed itself in dramatically higher costs for airfreight. The normal rate of a few dollars per kilogram — a little over two pounds — has surged to as much as $15, customs brokers say. Organizations representing major drugmakers have warned that the strain on their supply chains could affect their ability to respond to the ongoing pandemic....

"The outbreak has underscored America’s dependence on foreign-made medicines, pharmaceutical ingredients and medical supplies, many of which come from China and India. And it’s an issue that could be of critical importance if a vaccine for the coronavirus is developed and there is a global scramble by nations seeking to protect their citizens.

"Already, U.S. officials have had to intervene to obtain supplies. The Trump administration has chartered cargo flights to bring in medical supplies from overseas. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) secured thousands of testing kits from South Korea, which arrived by a Korean Air jet last month. But despite fears early in the pandemic of widespread drug shortages across the board, they have largely not materialized....

"Some 45 to 50 percent of freight typically moves in passenger jets, complementing dedicated cargo flights run by companies such as FedEx and UPS. The passenger network is important to the drug industry, which makes some products that need to be kept cool and moved quickly. But as the virus has spread, nations around the globe have imposed restrictions on international travel, and airlines have slashed flights.... The total weight of air cargo between the United States and other countries was down 7.3 percent in February, compared with the same month in 2019.... Cargo between the United States and China dropped ...: 22 percent....

"The stimulus law contained specific provisions designed to safeguard medical supply chains. But in a ruling interpreting the terms of the stimulus, the Transportation Department declined to mandate international flights, siding with the airline industry in saying it was unreasonable to compel airlines to fly when foreign governments are setting the terms for travel....

"The airlines say that as passenger demand has evaporated they’ve stepped up cargo operations. The Federal Aviation Administration issued guidance affirming that cargo can be carried inside passenger cabins, but it included safety warnings.... Airlines For America, a group representing the major carriers, asked the FAA to go further and allow its members to load cargo into passenger seats. The organization framed the request as a way to help boost capacity for critical medical supplies. The FAA has yet to respond to the application.

"United Airlines is running 150 all-cargo flights a week between six airports in the United States and 13 cities overseas. That figure is expected to grow, company spokeswoman Rachael Rivas said.... American Airlines had 46 cargo-only flights per week in late April, connecting the United States to Asia, South America and Europe.

"Marco Oliveira, director of pharmaceutical business at logistics company Oceanair, credited the airlines with coming up with creative ways to try to address the problems. But for now, he said drug companies have little option but to pay the vastly inflated freight rates.

"The challenges are likely to continue to be a factor as the pandemic continues to unfold. Mulcahy, the RAND researcher, said the viability of the medical supply chain will be especially important if a vaccine is first developed overseas. He said government officials ought to be thinking now about how supplies of a vaccine or ingredients to make enough in the United States will be secured."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drug-industry-warns-that-cuts-to-passenger-airline-service-has-put-medical-supplies-at-risk/2020/05/02/d34a7c96-83ff-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html

John Stossel teaches kids about free market (video)

Stossel: Exposing Students to Free Markets - Reason.com - John Stossel and Tanvir Toy:

January 22, 2019 - "It's school choice week. Many kids don't have choice in where they go to school. The school choice movement is trying to give them that opportunity. Of course, having choice when it comes to what kids learn is important too.

"Many schools teach kids that capitalism hurts people. So John Stossel started a charity called Stossel in the Classroom. It offers teachers free videos that introduce kids to free market ideas. Students rarely hear about these ideas in school.

Graduates from Queens Technical High School in New York City ... watched the videos while they were in high school.... 'They really opened up my mind to think differently' said Xiomara Inga. Antonio Parada added the videos 'changed the way that I viewed the world.' Gabriel Miller ... explains, 'We are taught that this country is horrible.' But after watching the videos, 'I felt ashamed for what I initially believed … [so] I wanted to give back.'

"Diony Perez was inspired to open his own business.... Johann Astudillo learned about unintended consequences from a video about minimum wage.... Victoria Guerrero learned that most rich people get rich by providing some benefit to society.... Stossel says he is glad his charity helps students understand free market ideas."

Read more: https://reason.com/reasontv/2019/01/22/stossel-exposing-students-to-free-market?utm_medium=email
'via Blog this'

Also read: Izzit.org promotes free society with free videos

US opioid deaths rise as gov'ts cut prescriptions

The Lethal Success of Pain Pill Restrictions - Jacob Sullum, Reason Hit and Run:

May 9, 2016 - "In a speech on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department is striving to 'bring down' both 'opioid prescriptions' and 'overdose deaths.' A study published the following day suggests those two goals may be at odds with each other, highlighting the potentially perverse consequences of trying to stop people from getting the drugs they want.

"Columbia University epidemiologist David Fink and his colleagues systematically reviewed research on the impact of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), which all 50 states have established.... Fink et al. say the evidence that PDMPs reduce deaths involving prescription opioids is 'largely insufficient,' adding that 'implementation of PDMPs may have unintended negative outcomes — namely, increased rates of heroin-related overdose'....

"The picture looks worse when you take into account deaths involving illegally produced drugs, which now account for a large majority of opioid-related fatalities.... To the extent that PDMPs succeed in making pain pills harder to obtain, they encourage nonmedical users to seek black-market substitutes. 'Changes to either the supply or cost of prescription opioids after a PDMP is instituted,' Fink et al. observe, 'might reasonably drive opioid-dependent persons to substitute their preferred prescription opioid with heroin or nonpharmaceutical fentanyl'....

"If the aim is preventing drug-related deaths, this shift is counterproductive, to say the least. Because their purity and potency are inconsistent and unpredictable, illegally produced opioids are much more dangerous than pain pills.

"A report published last month by the health care consulting firm IQVIA shows that the total volume of opioids prescribed in the United States fell by 29 percent between 2011 and 2017, from 240 billion to 171 billion morphine milligram equivalents. According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), deaths involving pain pills nevertheless rose by 24 percent from 2011 to 2016, while total deaths involving opioids rose by 85 percent.

"That trend includes a 252 percent increase in heroin-related deaths and an astonishing 628 percent increase in deaths involving the opioid category that consists mainly of fentanyl and its analogues. Final CDC figures for 2017 are not available yet, but the provisional numbers indicate there will be more increases....

"Since the current strategy is manifestly not working, drug warriors are, as usual, redoubling their efforts. The Drug Enforcement Administration, which sets annual quotas for opioid production, reduced the limit by 25 percent in 2017 and 20 percent this year."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/09/the-lethal-success-of-pain-pill-restrict

Intervention Backfires in Libya

Intervention Backfires in Libya / by Rep. Ron Paul -- Antiwar.com:

September 18, 2012 - "The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, whether by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.

"Unfortunately, what we saw in Libya last week is nothing new.

"In 1980s Afghanistan, the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what came to be known as al-Qaeda, and our one-times allies turned on us most spectacularly on Sept. 11, 2001."

Read more: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/09/17/intervention-backfires-in-libya/
'via Blog this'