International
How airlines and airports are paving the way towards a more sustainable recovery post-COVID-19
The following article was published by Future Travel Experience
FTE explores recent initiatives airlines and airports have undertaken to lower their carbon footprint and restart operations in a more sustainable way. The COVID-19 crisis has had a detriment
Share this:
The following article was published by Future Travel Experience
FTE explores recent initiatives airlines and airports have undertaken to lower their carbon footprint and restart operations in a more sustainable way.
The COVID-19 crisis has had a detrimental impact on the air transport industry, but it is also offering an opportunity for airlines and airports to rethink their strategies and restart operations in a way that shapes a greener and more resilient future.
Despite the crisis, many airlines and airports have put investment in sustainability on top of their agendas, as FTE highlighted in our trends feature in the beginning of the year. So, let’s take a look at some of the recent initiatives that the industry has undertaken to drive these efforts:
Airline bailouts – a missed opportunity to tackle climate crisis
The global airline industry is under an extreme financial pressure with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) forecasting a total net loss of $118.5 billion for 2020. COVID-19 relief packages have been a vital lifeline for airlines around the world with government financial aid to airlines totalling $123 billion worldwide.
While this could have been a real opportunity for governments around the world to enforce environmental terms as part of their bailout conditions, only a few set the terms in favour of the environment.
For instance, the US COVID-19 relief act (CARES Act) provided $50 billion to keep US carriers afloat last year. Despite US airlines having by far the biggest carbon footprint compared to other nations, the bailout failed to outline clear environmental standards.
Nevertheless, some airlines in the US have already taken action to reduce emissions. Early in 2020, Delta Air Lines announced that it is committing $1 billion over the next 10 years to mitigate all emissions from its global business going forward. In his keynote address during last year’s FTE APEX Virtual Expo, Delta’s CEO Ed Bastian confirmed that despite the pandemic, the airline is continuing its investment in innovation, advancing clean air travel technologies, accelerating the reduction of carbon emissions and waste, and establishing new projects to mitigate the balance of emissions.
Meanwhile in Europe, the pressure is on for some airlines that have had to agree to environmental terms in order to receive bailout from their respective governments.
Air France, for instance, received a €7 billion grant from the French government, which highlighted clear environmental conditions to the state aid with the objective of making Air France “the most environmentally friendly airline” in the world. Among the conditions are reduction in carbon emissions, reduction in domestic flights and a shift to alternative fuels.
As part of its Horizon 2030 plan, Air France had already outlined its aim to halve CO2 emissions per passenger/km by 2030, and it is also committed to modernising its short-, medium- and long-haul fleet by ordering 60 Airbus A220-300s, gradually replacing Air France’s A319 and A319 fleet; taking delivery of 28 Airbus A350-900s, the first of which have already joined the carrier’s fleet; and retiring its Airbus A380 by 2022.
Similarly, KLM also received restrictions from the Dutch government, which supported the carrier with a €3.4 billion bailout package. While the financial aid has since been put on hold, it initially outlined that KLM needs to reduce evening flights, encourage rail journeys, as well as reduce emissions per passenger by half by 2030.
Austrian Airlines is another carrier that received a substantial bailout package of €600 million with specified requirements around sustainability, such as shifting passenger traffic to rail on short-haul flights; cutting domestic CO2 emissions in half by 2030; reducing total CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030; and improving fuel efficiency by 1.5% per year to achieve an average carbon footprint per 100 passenger kilometre of 8.5kg by 2030 compared to a current footprint of 9.55kg.
Austrian Airlines’ parent company Lufthansa, however, received a €9 billion bailout from the German government, without climate strings attached.
SAF – the biggest emissions reduction opportunity
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) have been identified as one of the key elements to helping the air transport industry reach net zero carbon.
During a recent international conference on synthetic sustainable aviation fuels, KLM announced that it has become the first airline in the world to perform a passenger flight using sustainably produced synthetic kerosene. The flight from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to Madrid, which took place in January, was carried out on an admixture of 500 litres of sustainable synthetic kerosene. The synthetic propellent, produced by Shell in its research centre in Amsterdam, was based on CO2, water and renewable energy from sun and wind from Dutch soil.
During the conference, Pieter Elbers, CEO KLM, said: “The transition from fossil fuel to sustainable alternatives is one of the largest challenges in aviation. Fleet renewal contributed significantly to the reduction of CO2 emissions, but the upscaling of production and the use of sustainable aviation fuel will make the biggest difference for the current generation of aircraft.”
Last year, we also saw San Francisco International Airport taking delivery of a new sustainable aviation fuel from the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel and SAFs, Finnish Neste. So far, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines and JetBlue have been the first airlines to sign a partnership with the airport to use the fuel produced from waste and excess raw materials to partially power their flights from the airport.
United Airlines is another carrier that has used SAF to help sustainably power every flight departing its Los Angeles hub since 2016. In 2019, the carrier renewed its contract with Boston-based World Energy, agreeing to purchase up to 10 million gallons of cost-competitive SAF, and it has invested more than $30 million in California-based sustainable fuel producer Fulcrum BioEnergy.
Current SAF production rates, however, are too low to be widely adopted by the aviation industry and the price still remains high. IATA estimates that current SAF production is 50 million litres annually. To reach a tipping point where the scale of production will see SAF costs drop to levels competitive with jet fuel, production needs to reach 7 billion litres or 2% of 2019 consumption.
According to IATA’s Robert Boyd, Assistant Director Aviation Environment and Lead on Sustainable Aviation Fuel, SAF could make up 2% of all aviation fuel by 2025, with the right policy support. “That’s likely to be a tipping point to make the cost of SAF competitive with fossil fuel,” he explains.
Hydrogen aircraft by 2030
New fuel technology advancements, such as hydrogen and electric-powered aircraft, are also coming to the market.
Airbus, for instance, sees hydrogen as the pathway towards its goal of bringing a zero-emissions commercial airliner to market in the next decade. Last September, the company unveiled three new ZEROe aircraft concepts relying on hydrogen as a primary power source option which Airbus believes “holds exceptional promise as a clean aviation fuel”.
According to Airbus’ VP of Zero-Emission Aircraft Glenn Llewellyn “cost-competitive green hydrogen and cross-industry partnerships will be mandatory to bring zero-emission flying to reality”.
But in order for hydrogen fuel to become the norm in the next 15 years, there are a number of technical and regulatory hurdles that need to be addressed around hydrogen storage, cost and infrastructure and public perceptions about safety.
Airports will also play a key part in developing the necessary refuelling infrastructure to meet the needs of day-to-day operations. Just this month, Groupe ADP announced a new partnership with Airbus, Air France-KLM and the Paris region, which called for expressions of interest to explore the opportunities generated by hydrogen in Paris airports with the aim to decarbonise air transport activities. The ultimate goal of the partnership will be to transform Paris airports into hydrogen hubs, revolutionising the way airport infrastructure is designed and operated.
Smart & autonomous airside operations by 2050
On the ground, airports are also using the COVID-19 downtime to trial new sustainable operations. Recently, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol started a trial of an autonomous baggage tractor that will take baggage to the aircraft on the apron.
The trial forms part of a new programme launched by Royal Schiphol Group, called Autonomous Airside Operations, in support of its vision to operate “the most sustainable airports in the world” by 2050. According to the airport operator, the ground-based airport activities, such as baggage transport, passenger transport and aircraft towing, will be smart and autonomous. The aim is ultimately to replace all airside vehicles with an interconnected fleet of self-driving, emission-free vehicles, in order to guarantee and improve quality in the long-term.
Alternative modes of transport – eVTOL & hyperloop
Urban Air Mobility is also an emerging trend that has the potential to accelerate the air transport’s transformation towards a more CO2 neutral industry.
Last week, United Airlines became the latest airline to explore the potential of electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft through a new partnership with air mobility company Archer. Archer’s eVTOL aircraft are designed to use electric motors and have the potential for future use as an ‘air taxi’ in urban markets. Under the terms of the agreement, United would acquire a fleet of up to 200 of the electric aircraft that would be operated by a partner and are expected to give customers a quick, economical and low-carbon way to get to United’s hub airports and commute in dense urban environments within the next five years. United estimates that using Archer’s eVTOL aircraft could reduce CO2 emissions by 47% per passenger on a trip between Hollywood and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), one of the initial cities where Archer plans to launch its fleet.
Several other airlines and airports have also worked on the development of air mobility services in recent years, including Japan Airlines, Groupe ADP, Incheon International Airport Corporation and Fraport AG.
Looking further ahead, one mode of transport that could disrupt short-haul and domestic air travel in the long-term is hyperloop, which is intended to be a sustainable and more-environmentally friendly way to travel. According to Virgin Hyperloop, its high-speed technology concept is powered electronically and doesn’t have negative environmental emissions.
Going forward it would be essential for airlines and airports to work together with the whole travel ecosystem to explore the synergies that could be created by these new modes of transport.
It is encouraging to see that airlines and airports are trialling new solutions and are becoming more environmentally conscious. The whole industry would have to collaborate more than ever before to ensure that, as it emerges from the COVID-19 crisis, it isn’t overlooking the bigger threat of climate change.
Future Travel Experience is committed to driving the discussion forward and helping the air transport industry work together to build back better. Sustainability will be a major topic during the upcoming FTE APEX Virtual Expo 2021 (25-26 May), where we will provide a platform for airlines, airports and suppliers to share experiences from recent initiatives and form a path forward.
Article originally published here:
How airlines and airports are paving the way towards a more sustainable recovery post-COVID-19
International
Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills
Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills
By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times
Tens of thousands of illegal…
Share this:
By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding into U.S. hospitals for treatment and leaving billions in uncompensated health care costs in their wake.
The House Committee on Homeland Security recently released a report illustrating that from the estimated $451 billion in annual costs stemming from the U.S. border crisis, a significant portion is going to health care for illegal immigrants.
With the majority of the illegal immigrant population lacking any kind of medical insurance, hospitals and government welfare programs such as Medicaid are feeling the weight of these unanticipated costs.
Apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the U.S. border have jumped 48 percent since the record in fiscal year 2021 and nearly tripled since fiscal year 2019, according to Customs and Border Protection data.
Last year broke a new record high for illegal border crossings, surpassing more than 3.2 million apprehensions.
And with that sea of humanity comes the need for health care and, in most cases, the inability to pay for it.
In January, CEO of Denver Health Donna Lynne told reporters that 8,000 illegal immigrants made roughly 20,000 visits to the city’s health system in 2023.
The total bill for uncompensated care costs last year to the system totaled $140 million, said Dane Roper, public information officer for Denver Health. More than $10 million of it was attributed to “care for new immigrants,” he told The Epoch Times.
Though the amount of debt assigned to illegal immigrants is a fraction of the total, uncompensated care costs in the Denver Health system have risen dramatically over the past few years.
The total uncompensated costs in 2020 came to $60 million, Mr. Roper said. In 2022, the number doubled, hitting $120 million.
He also said their city hospitals are treating issues such as “respiratory illnesses, GI [gastro-intenstinal] illnesses, dental disease, and some common chronic illnesses such as asthma and diabetes.”
“The perspective we’ve been trying to emphasize all along is that providing healthcare services for an influx of new immigrants who are unable to pay for their care is adding additional strain to an already significant uncompensated care burden,” Mr. Roper said.
He added this is why a local, state, and federal response to the needs of the new illegal immigrant population is “so important.”
Colorado is far from the only state struggling with a trail of unpaid hospital bills.
Dr. Robert Trenschel, CEO of the Yuma Regional Medical Center situated on the Arizona–Mexico border, said on average, illegal immigrants cost up to three times more in human resources to resolve their cases and provide a safe discharge.
“Some [illegal] migrants come with minor ailments, but many of them come in with significant disease,” Dr. Trenschel said during a congressional hearing last year.
“We’ve had migrant patients on dialysis, cardiac catheterization, and in need of heart surgery. Many are very sick.”
He said many illegal immigrants who enter the country and need medical assistance end up staying in the ICU ward for 60 days or more.
A large portion of the patients are pregnant women who’ve had little to no prenatal treatment. This has resulted in an increase in babies being born that require neonatal care for 30 days or longer.
Dr. Trenschel told The Epoch Times last year that illegal immigrants were overrunning healthcare services in his town, leaving the hospital with $26 million in unpaid medical bills in just 12 months.
ER Duty to Care
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires that public hospitals participating in Medicare “must medically screen all persons seeking emergency care … regardless of payment method or insurance status.”
The numbers are difficult to gauge as the policy position of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is that it “will not require hospital staff to ask patients directly about their citizenship or immigration status.”
In southern California, again close to the border with Mexico, some hospitals are struggling with an influx of illegal immigrants.
American patients are enduring longer wait times for doctor appointments due to a nursing shortage in the state, two health care professionals told The Epoch Times in January.
A health care worker at a hospital in Southern California, who asked not to be named for fear of losing her job, told The Epoch Times that “the entire health care system is just being bombarded” by a steady stream of illegal immigrants.
“Our healthcare system is so overwhelmed, and then add on top of that tuberculosis, COVID-19, and other diseases from all over the world,” she said.
A newly-enacted law in California provides free healthcare for all illegal immigrants residing in the state. The law could cost taxpayers between $3 billion and $6 billion per year, according to recent estimates by state and federal lawmakers.
In New York, where the illegal immigration crisis has manifested most notably beyond the southern border, city and state officials have long been accommodating of illegal immigrants’ healthcare costs.
Since June 2014, when then-mayor Bill de Blasio set up The Task Force on Immigrant Health Care Access, New York City has worked to expand avenues for illegal immigrants to get free health care.
“New York City has a moral duty to ensure that all its residents have meaningful access to needed health care, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay,” Mr. de Blasio stated in a 2015 report.
The report notes that in 2013, nearly 64 percent of illegal immigrants were uninsured. Since then, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have settled in the city.
“The uninsured rate for undocumented immigrants is more than three times that of other noncitizens in New York City (20 percent) and more than six times greater than the uninsured rate for the rest of the city (10 percent),” the report states.
The report states that because healthcare providers don’t ask patients about documentation status, the task force lacks “data specific to undocumented patients.”
Some health care providers say a big part of the issue is that without a clear path to insurance or payment for non-emergency services, illegal immigrants are going to the hospital due to a lack of options.
“It’s insane, and it has been for years at this point,” Dana, a Texas emergency room nurse who asked to have her full name omitted, told The Epoch Times.
Working for a major hospital system in the greater Houston area, Dana has seen “a zillion” migrants pass through under her watch with “no end in sight.” She said many who are illegal immigrants arrive with treatable illnesses that require simple antibiotics. “Not a lot of GPs [general practitioners] will see you if you can’t pay and don’t have insurance.”
She said the “undocumented crowd” tends to arrive with a lot of the same conditions. Many find their way to Houston not long after crossing the southern border. Some of the common health issues Dana encounters include dehydration, unhealed fractures, respiratory illnesses, stomach ailments, and pregnancy-related concerns.
“This isn’t a new problem, it’s just worse now,” Dana said.
Medicaid Factor
One of the main government healthcare resources illegal immigrants use is Medicaid.
All those who don’t qualify for regular Medicaid are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, regardless of immigration status. By doing this, the program helps pay for the cost of uncompensated care bills at qualifying hospitals.
However, some loopholes allow access to the regular Medicaid benefits. “Qualified noncitizens” who haven’t been granted legal status within five years still qualify if they’re listed as a refugee, an asylum seeker, or a Cuban or Haitian national.
Yet the lion’s share of Medicaid usage by illegal immigrants still comes through state-level benefits and emergency medical treatment.
A Congressional report highlighted data from the CMS, which showed total Medicaid costs for “emergency services for undocumented aliens” in fiscal year 2021 surpassed $7 billion, and totaled more than $5 billion in fiscal 2022.
Both years represent a significant spike from the $3 billion in fiscal 2020.
An employee working with Medicaid who asked to be referred to only as Jennifer out of concern for her job, told The Epoch Times that at a state level, it’s easy for an illegal immigrant to access the program benefits.
Jennifer said that when exceptions are sent from states to CMS for approval, “denial is actually super rare. It’s usually always approved.”
She also said it comes as no surprise that many of the states with the highest amount of Medicaid spending are sanctuary states, which tend to have policies and laws that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.
Moreover, Jennifer said there are ways for states to get around CMS guidelines. “It’s not easy, but it can and has been done.”
The first generation of illegal immigrants who arrive to the United States tend to be healthy enough to pass any pre-screenings, but Jennifer has observed that the subsequent generations tend to be sicker and require more access to care. If a family is illegally present, they tend to use Emergency Medicaid or nothing at all.
The Epoch Times asked Medicaid Services to provide the most recent data for the total uncompensated care that hospitals have reported. The agency didn’t respond.
Continue reading over at The Epoch Times
International
Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show
The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.
Share this:
The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.
The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.
Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.
However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.
Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.
Energy security
In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.
We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.
Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).
Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.
In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.
Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.
In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.
Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.
The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.
In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.
In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.
Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.
This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.
Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.
It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.
The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.
Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.
John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
european uk pandemicGovernment
Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes
After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…
Share this:
After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.
Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.
These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.
Another excerpt:
That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.
Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.
(0 COMMENTS) budget deficit coronavirus covid-19 white house fauci trump canada
Net Zero, The Digital Panopticon, & The Future Of Food
Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study
For-profit nursing homes are cutting corners on safety and draining resources with financial shenanigans − especially at midsize chains that dodge public scrutiny
Trump nearly derailed democracy once − here’s what to watch out for in reelection campaign
‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response
Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes
Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda
Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico
Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills
MIPIM 2024 Reflects Mixed Feelings on CRE Recovery
-
Uncategorized3 weeks agoAll Of The Elements Are In Place For An Economic Crisis Of Staggering Proportions
-
International1 week agoEyePoint poaches medical chief from Apellis; Sandoz CFO, longtime BioNTech exec to retire
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoCalifornia Counties Could Be Forced To Pay $300 Million To Cover COVID-Era Program
-
Uncategorized3 weeks agoApparel Retailer Express Moving Toward Bankruptcy
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoIndustrial Production Decreased 0.1% in January
-
International1 week agoWalmart launches clever answer to Target’s new membership program
-
Spread & Containment2 days agoIFM’s Hat Trick and Reflections On Option-To-Buy M&A
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoRFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex