United Kingdom prepares to give first COVID-19 Vaccinations

Article Link

           It's finally here, Britain is beginning to prepare the release of the first doses of a COVID-19 vaccination. It's been confirmed that England had already received their allocation of the vaccine and it is currently in the process of being distributed. The vaccine is known as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and UK health officials expect to have up to four million doses of it. The Pfizer/BioNTech is said to offer up to 95 percent protection against COVID-19 and by the end of December it will be available to anyone. As of right now, over 40 million doses of the vaccine has been purchased by the government which is enough to vaccinate 20 million people in total which is a third of the entire United Kingdom population. Benefits will come with the UK being the first to lay hands on the vaccine because more deaths from COVID have been recorded in the UK than anywhere else in Europe. The Pfizer vaccine doses are stored in freezers at minus 70 degrees celsius. Only specific freezers are capable of such temperatures. After taken out of the freezer, the MHRA authorization requires the doses to be refrigerated and used within five days. The first doses arrived in the UK on Thursday night. The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation suggest that the vaccine should be given to older patients and staff first. People over 80 years old would take it first because they are more at risk at death to the virus rather than younger humans. But, according to the head of UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) June Raine tells the British Broadcasting Corporation "You might have a mild symptom but it will probably disappear in a day or two, and nothing at all of a serious nature." June Raine makes it clear that symptoms may occur but it won't be too severe or dangerous. The MHRA explains that one in ten recipients may receive pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain and possibly a fever.

        Personally, I believe that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is a good idea. Despite the symptoms, the vaccine is apparently 95 percent protective against COVID-19 and they have produced millions of doses already. Even then, the symptoms aren't life threatening at all. One in ten people may receive symptoms which isn't a risky odd but nonetheless, theres no danger to the patient. The Pfizer does have its challenges, they are meant to be kept in 70 degree celsius cooling areas. The containers that they are kept in are special and not many hospitals have access to them. It's definitely a challenge but with a lot of cooperation and communication, it could work and end up successful. We also need to keep in mind that the longer we wait for a perfect virus to come out, the more time we give for the COVID-19 death counter to go up. Therefore, I believe the Pfizer could help facilitate all problems we have right now.

Questions:

1) What are your thoughts on the Pfizer?

2) Are the odds of the Pfizer symptoms too risky?

3) Do you agree that staff and older individuals deserve first dibs on the vaccine?

What Happens Next for DACA's Dreamers

 In June of 2012, Barack Obama announced and established the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigration policy. The DACA program would provide undocumented immigrants under the age of 16 who are currently in school with a high school diploma or GED and have no criminal record a “permit” that would allow its recipients a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and the legal ability to work in the US. In 2015, Obama proposed expanding DACA to protect the undocumented parents of children that were US citizens, an action that was widely unpopular among states and was blocked by the Supreme Court. Then, when the Trump administration assumed office, they decided to terminate DACA in 2017. After examining the situation more closely, the Supreme Court ruled that the DACA program was unconstitutional in 2018 but allowed it to remain in place. However, those who did not have DACA would not be able to apply for the program’s protection. 

Since the DACA program has been created, it has faced many legal challenges and still does so today. Most recently, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis from the District Court in Brooklyn reversed an act approved by the acting secretary of Homeland Security that restricted new applicants from participating in the program. Garaufis’ decision has been met with much opposition, particularly from the department of Homeland Security, stating that they believe that his ruling was made rashly and not on a legal basis. But for undocumented immigrants, there doesn’t seem to be much hope. Later this month, a federal judge in Texas is expected to rule in favor of conservative states to terminate the DACA program. This issue has also created a large challenge for the Biden Administration. Biden has already vowed to reverse Trump’s immigration policies and protect the DACA program, but he will be met with much opposition. If Biden decides to pass an executive order to protect the DACA program, the order will likely be blocked by conservative states such as Texas and Mississippi, just like Obama’s proposal to expand the DACA program to more undocumented immigrants. 

Personally, I believe that the DACA program should be kept. For 18 year old Ms. Morales, this means she can pursue her goal of having a career in criminal justice, and for Ms. Perez, this means she can get her law degree. The program has helped as much as 800,000 young Dreamers secure better educational and financial opportunities, and for many it means the ability to pursue their dreams like going to college. However, I also think that the DACA program isn’t enough. If I were in a situation where I had to reapply every two years to a program in order to stay in my home, continue going to school, and continue going to work, I would be overwhelmed with so much uncertainty and fear. That being said, the DACA program is only temporary. I strongly believe that we need to adopt a permanent order like one similar to the Dream Act to give Dreamers protection from being deported and a path to U.S. citizenship. 

Article Link

1. What is your opinion on the DACA program? Do you think that it should be kept, reformed, or eliminated? Why? 

2. Do you think that the government should pass a permanent act to ensure that undocumented immigrants can stay in the U.S. and become a U.S. citizen? Why or why not? 

3. With the political and legal turmoil that has surrounded this issue, what do you think will happen when the Biden assumes office? Do you think he’ll be able to keep his promise regarding protecting the DACA program? Why?

The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?

 

Article Link 

As we get closer and closer to having a COVID-19 vaccine available for the public, the C.D.C. will soon be deciding who to recommend as a priority in receiving this limited initial supply of the vaccine. The groups that are most vulnerable to the virus are seniors and those with underlying conditions. On the other hand, people who work in necessary facilities and businesses, from hospitals to grocery stores, are on the front lines and interact with tons of people every day. Though it’s ultimately up to governors and state officials to decide, this discussion is a difficult one all around and I don’t think there’s really a perfect solution to this.  

The choice mainly comes down to whether the goal is preventing deaths or slowing the spread of the virus– both of which are obviously important, and there are many factors that complicate the matter. Prioritizing essential workers would curb the rate of infection, but in the U.S. around 70% of workers are deemed essential workers, making the definition of “essential” even more confusing. This group ranges from food and healthcare workers to educators, engineers, exterminators, and countless other people. It’s unlikely that there will be enough of the vaccine for this entire group, so the decision of which workers should be vaccinated first also needs to be made. Alternatively, if the goal is to extend human lives then that would mean vaccinating older Americans first at the expense of reducing the rate of infection and being able to return to some sense of normalcy. A committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. will soon vote on who to recommend for the second phase of vaccination. In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee showed more support for essential workers rather than those 65+ and those with high-risk health conditions.

Personally, I think that vaccinating some members of different groups would be both effective and a way to reduce overall damage in the long run. I’m sure many essential workers are also immunocompromised and/or are older, making them more vulnerable. There are also higher infection rates amongst low-income people/workers, so they should be considered too. Emergency responders and healthcare workers (and in general those who interact with the public on a regular basis) should also be prioritized. But overall, it’s terrible that a choice has to be made on who is more “essential” and which groups should be preserved over others.

1. Who should be the first to receive a vaccine? Is there a successful way to vaccinate some members of a certain group but not others?

2. How do you define “essential workers”?

3. Is the income of a family/individual a valid aspect to consider when determining who should be first to be vaccinated?

As Pandemic Threatens Britain’s Mental Health, These ‘Fishermen’ Fight Back

Article Link

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken its toll on communities across the globe. With people being socially isolated, stressed, lonely, and financially insecure, people's pre-existing mental health conditions are worsening. A lack of human connection is also leading to depression and suicide. In Gainsborough, England, a mental health charity called the Bearded Fishermen is stepping up for their community. Volunteers work with emergency responders to monitor known suicide hot spots in the area through their "Night Watch" suicide prevention initiative, as well as respond to mental health calls at residents' homes. It's uplifting to see people actively acknowledging and helping those who are struggling with mental health issues. I think it's paramount for there to be more consistent awareness about mental health and suicide prevention during this pandemic because recognizing that there are resources to help lets people understand that suicide is not inevitable. In communities, schools play a big role, even while we're learning virtually. Having kind, helpful counselors and teachers, as well as easy access to helpful resources and support online, can make a huge difference in a person's outlook on life. I believe the more frequently mental health and suicide is talked about, the less stigma there is about using those resources to ask for help. 

What's your reaction to this article?

Do you think there needs to be more consistent awareness about mental health and suicide prevention during this pandemic? 

How do you think communities in the United States can provide socially distanced outreach and support to those struggling with their mental health? 

Five Bay Area counties to enact strict stay-at-home order ahead of state edict, starting Sunday

 

    Starting Sunday at 10 p.m, a stay at home order will be issued by direct order of Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California. This will force the major counties in the Bay Area, San Francisco, Marin, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Alameda counties to shut down all outdoor dining, personal care services and entertainment locations. This means that gyms, movie theaters, zoos and other possible super-spreader environments will be shut down with only the essential businesses operating at a lowered capacity. This would force restaurants to do takeout and delivery along with grocery stores operating at 20% capacity. The reason for this order is based upon the availability of ICU beds. 

    The statewide order issued depended on ICUs dropping to 15% of available beds, however this order came early at the fear of a "dark Covid winter" dropping the amount of available care even further. Currently, the counties are averaging around a 25% ICU bed availability with the most drastic being 14% in Santa Clara. Director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health Grant Colfax claims that "We need urgent intervention now to dent the trajectory of this surge." Many regions in California hold true to Dr. Colfax's statement as hospitalizations hit a record high every single day. This would see counties such as Santa Clara, losing all available ICU beds. This stay-at-home order is going to take place over the course of a month, attempting to limit the spread of the virus until a vaccine can be distributed to boost the fight against it. With the holiday season approaching, many have already thought about traveling and this stay-at-home order, according to many, is untimely. 

    My personal opinion on this is that this stay-at-home order is the absolute correct thing to do. Regardless of holiday traditions, visiting family or socializing with friends, a lockdown needs to be in order as a new record of Covid-19 highs are being hit everyday. Simply being outside, masked or not, puts people at risk and in order to limit this, strict orders have to be instated. This isn't a "normal" time so normal traditions should be put on hold until us, as a people, can make it out of this war without so many casualties. I'm not saying to throw away Christmas, but to celebrate as a family, because being alive, not needing to fight for every single breath of air is the ultimate gift for this holiday season, regardless of what we usually have. 

1. What is your opinion on this state order? Is it too harsh? Not harsh enough?

2. What will the impact of this be on the economy? Is it worth it to shut a large portion of it down?

3. With this statewide stay-at-home order in place, do you think we should return to school following the winter break?

Article Link

Los Angeles Police Just Banned The Use Of Commercial Facial Recognition

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/lapd-banned-commercial-facial-recognition-clearview

Facial Recognition software such as Clearview AI have created a lot of controversy over the proper regulations and usage for the program. Clearview AI uses facial recognition technology to gather images off of social media platforms, and saves them in their database, even after the picture is deleted online. Some say this is a breach of privacy, but Clearview AI claims that this technology is only meant to be used to help law enforcement solve crime such as shoplifting or identity theft. 

However, the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) has decided to temporarily prohibit the use of Clearview AI, after the program was used by officials who were not authorized access to it. It was reported in March that over 2,200 "law enforcement departments, government agencies, and private companies across 27 countries" had used Clearview AI, many of which did not have professional agreements with Clearview AI, and were able to experiment with the technology as a "free trial." Clearview AI was also found to tell officers to "run wild" with the technology and test it out on friends and family. They granted access to "political allies, Republican lawmakers, and entities in countries with questionable human rights records." The officers who use Clearview AI refuse to say what they use the software for, and whether or not they have actually made any arrests through using it, which is what Clearview claims it was intended for. The LAPD does use another facial recognition program called LACRIS, but LACRIS only takes photos such as mugshots and booking photos, not pictures off social media. 

Personally, I find it somewhat scary that Clearview can access so many pictures online. It's not limited to what I post, but what others post too. I agree with most people who call it "creepy," although I don't think it's a breach of security since these pictures are on the internet already. Though I can't use it, it's kind of interesting to think that on their database there are pictures of me that I don't even know are on the internet, such as a stranger catching my face in their YouTube video. I think this technology is very advanced and has a lot of potential, but it can also be easily abused and maybe hijacked by people who are not allowed access to it. 

Do you think Clearview AI is doing more harm than good? What else could Clearview be used for? 

Who do you think should be able to use Clearview AI? What rules would there be to ensure security?

‘It Has to Stop’: Georgia Election Official Lashes Trump

 

As the senate runoff elections in Georgia which could turn the senate to a blue majority are gaining traction and publicity by many, there is also a lot of input by members of the Government. In Georgia, there have been many threats of violence recently against overseers of elections, and it is becoming very nerve wracking to these officials. Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system implementation manager spoke out very strongly against these threats and how President Trump is contributing to them. President Trump has not condemned the threats or violence against these officials, and Mr. Sterling, at a conference at his state's capitol stated: "It has to stop, Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language." He then went on to say that these were elections, the backbone of democracy, and anyone who has not stepped in is complicit. Threats had been made not only against Sterling, but against many Georgia officials and their families, and Sterling, at the conference stated: "Stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed. And it’s not right.”

A lot of these threats began when President Trump refused to concede, and still believes that he won Georgia. While he does not condemn these threats, he is still lashing out at anyone and everyone who states that he did in fact lose Georgia, including Georgia's own Governor, Brian Kemp, a Trump supporter himself. He is also tweeting many strong messages that contain a lot of misinformation, claiming that the entire election was a fraud and that he won by a landslide. Recounts are taking place in Georgia of votes, but while all of this is happening, many officials in charge of overseeing this process are being virtually and physically harassed and threatened.

In my opinion, I believe that all citizens should respect the democratic process. It seems to be a compromise that every American should be able to live with, since President Trump won the election through this process in 2016 even without the popular vote. When President-elect Biden won the 2020 election with the largest number of votes in any election, it should seem obvious to both parties who the winner of the election was. Many people might not agree with the electoral college either, and I don't believe it is fair for many reasons, but in 2016 the election was won by the electoral college so it's confusing that many people don't accept this in 2020. I also believe that there should never be a threat to any person's safety, and no matter what political party someone aligns with, it's important to respect their safety and to condemn anyone who puts them in a state of fear.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you believe that President Trump's silence on the issue of threats to Georgia officials is justified? Why might he stay silent when overseers of a pressing issue to him are being threatened?

2. Do you think Trump's refusal to accept the results of the election could result in violence, or do you think that these threats are the extent of the conflict we will be seeing?

3. What is your opinion on the democratic process we currently hold (electoral college vs. popular vote, etc.) and why do you think many people, especially Trump supporters are claiming that it's rigged in 2020, but didn't in 2016? Do you believe that we should only take the popular vote when declaring the president?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/georgia-election-trump.html