Connect with us

Government

World’s worst pandemic leaders: 5 presidents and prime ministers who badly mishandled COVID-19

The pandemic’s not over yet, but these world leaders have already cemented their place in history for failing to effectively combat the deadly coronavirus. Some of them didn’t even really try.

Published

on

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko visits a hospital for COVID-19 patients, unmasked, in Minsk on Nov. 27, 2020. Andrei StasevichTASS via Getty Images

COVID-19 is notoriously hard to control, and political leaders are only part of the calculus when it comes to pandemic management. But some current and former world leaders have made little effort to combat outbreaks in their country, whether by downplaying the pandemic’s severity, disregarding science or ignoring critical health interventions like social distancing and masks. All of the men on this list committed at least one of those mistakes, and some committed all of them – with deadly consequences.

Narendra Modi of India

Sumit Ganguly, Indiana University

India is the new epicenter of the global pandemic, recording some 400,000 new cases per day by May 2021. However grim, this statistic fails to capture the sheer horror unfolding there. COVID-19 patients are dying in hospitals because doctors have no oxygen to give and no lifesaving drugs like remdesivir. The sick are turned away from clinics that have no free beds.

Many Indians blame one man for the country’s tragedy: Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In January 2021, Modi declared at a global forum that India had “saved humanity … by containing corona effectively.” In March, his health minister proclaimed that the pandemic was reaching an “endgame.” COVID-19 was actually gaining strength in India and worldwide – but his government made no preparations for possible contingencies, such as the emergence of a deadlier and more contagious COVID-19 variant.

Even as significant pockets of the country had not fully suppressed the virus, Modi and other members of his party held jampacked outdoor campaign rallies before April elections. Few attendees wore masks. Modi also allowed a religious festival that draws millions to proceed from January to March. Public health officials now believe the festival may have been a superspreader event and was “an enormous mistake.”

As Modi touted his successes last year, India – the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer – sent over 10 million vaccine doses to neighboring countries. Yet just 1.9% of India’s 1.3 billion people had been fully inoculated against COVID-19 by early May.

Modi and Bolsonaro shake hands
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are both accused of mishandling their countries’ COVID-19 outbreaks. Pavel Golovin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil

Elize Massard da Fonseca, Fundação Getulio Vargas and Scott L. Greer, University of Michigan

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro did not just fail to respond to COVID-19 – which he derides as a “little flu” – he actively worsened the crisis in Brazil.

Bolsonaro used his constitutional powers to interfere in the Health Ministry’s administrative matters, such as clinical protocols, data disclosure and vaccine procurement. He vetoed legislation that would have both mandated the use of masks in religious sites and compensated health professionals permanently harmed by the pandemic, for example. And he obstructed state government efforts to promote social distancing and used his decree power to allow many businesses to remain open as “essential,” including spas and gyms. Bolsonaro also aggressively promoted unproven medicines, notably hydroxychloroquine, to treat COVID-19 patients.

Bolsonaro used his public profile as president to shape the debate around the coronavirus crisis, fostering a false dilemma between economic catastrophe and social distancing and misrepresenting science. He has blamed Brazilian state governments, China and the World Health Organization for the COVID-19 crisis, and has never taken responsibility for managing his own country’s outbreak.

In December, Bolsonaro declared that he would not take the vaccine because of side effects. “If you turn into a crocodile, it’s your problem,” he said.

Bolsonaro’s pandemic mismanagement created conflict within his government. Brazil cycled through four health ministers in less than a year. Brazil’s uncontrolled outbreak gave rise to several new coronavirus variants, including the P.1 variant, which appears more contagious. Brazil’s COVID-19 transmission rate is finally starting to drop, but the situation is still worrisome.

Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus

Elizabeth J. King and Scott L. Greer, University of Michigan

Many countries around the world have responded to COVID-19 with tragically inadequate policies. However, we argue that the worse pandemic leaders are those handful who chose total denialism over ineffective action.

Alexander Lukashenko, the longtime authoritarian leader of Belarus, has never acknowledged the threat of COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, as other countries were enforcing lockdowns, Lukashenko opted not to implement any restrictive measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Instead, he claimed the virus could be prevented by drinking vodka, visiting the sauna and working in the fields. This denialism essentially left preventative measures and pandemic aid to individuals and crowdfunding campaigns.

Over the summer of 2020, Lukashenko stated that he had been diagnosed with COVID-19 but that he was asymptomatic, which allowed him to continue insisting that the virus was not a serious threat. Allegedly thwarting the disease and visiting COVID-19 hospitals without a mask also supported his desired image of a strong man.

Belarus has just started vaccination efforts, but Lukashenko says he won’t get vaccinated. Currently, fewer than 3% of Belarusians are inoculated against COVID-19.

Donald Trump of the United States

Dorothy Chin, University of California, Los Angeles

Trump is out of office, but his mishandling of the pandemic continues to have devastating long-term consequences on the United States – particularly on the health and welfare of communities of color.

Trump in front of a crowd
Trump at a campaign rally on Oct. 17, 2020, in Muskegon, Michigan, after recovering from COVID-19. Rey Del Rio/Getty Images

Trump’s early denial of the pandemic, active propagation of misinformation about mask-wearing and treatments and incoherent leadership harmed the country as a whole – but the outcome was much worse for some groups than others. Communities of color suffered disproportionate illness and deaths. Although African Americans and Latinos make up only 31% of the U.S. population, for example, they account for over 55% of COVID-19 cases. Indigenous Americans were hospitalized 3.5 times more and suffered 2.4 times the mortality rate of whites.

Unemployment rates are also disproportionate. During the worst of the U.S. pandemic, they soared to 17.6% for Latino Americans, 16.8% for African Americans and 15% for Asian Americans, compared with 12.4% for white Americans.

These crushing gaps amplified existing inequities such as poverty, housing instability and quality of schooling – and will likely continue to do so for some time to come. For example, while the overall U.S. economy shows signs of recovery, minority groups have not made equivalent progress.

Finally, Trump’s blame of China for COVID-19 – which included such racial epithets as calling the virus the “kung flu” – immediately preceded a nearly twofold increase in attacks on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the past year. This disturbing trend shows no signs of abating.

The Trump administration supported the country’s initial development of the vaccine, an achievement few world leaders can claim. But the misinformation and anti-science rhetoric he broadcast continues to compromise America’s path out of the pandemic. Latest polling suggests 24% of all Americans and 41% of Republicans say they will not get vaccinated.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico

Salvador Vázquez del Mercado, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas

With 9.2% of its COVID-19 patients dying from the disease, Mexico has the highest case fatality rate in the world. Recent estimates show that it has likely suffered 617,000 deaths – on par with the U.S. and India, both countries with much larger populations.

A combination of factors contributed to Mexico’s prolonged, extreme COVID-19 outbreaks. And inadequate national leadership was one of them.

Throughout the pandemic, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador sought to minimize the gravity of the situation in Mexico. In the very beginning, he resisted calls to enact a nationwide lockdown and continued holding rallies nationwide before eventually, on March 23, 2020, Mexico shuttered for two months. He frequently refused to wear a mask.

Mexico's president speaks at a lectern on a stage with a small crowd of government officials sitting nearby
López Obrador, maskless, announces a national lockdown on March 23, 2020, after weeks of encouraging Mexicans to keep up their regular routines. Adrián Monroy/Medios y Media/Getty Images

Having inherited an underfunded patchwork of health services when he took office in 2018, López Obrador increased health-related expenditures during the pandemic only slightly. Experts said hospital budgets are insufficient to the enormous task facing them.

Even before the pandemic broke out, López Obrador’s policy of extreme fiscal austerity – in place since 2018 – had made tackling a health crisis much more difficult by significantly limiting the COVID-19 financial aid available to citizens and businesses. That, in turn, aggravated the economic shock caused by the pandemic in Mexico, feeding the need to keep the economy open all last year, well into the ferocious winter second wave, from which Mexico is only beginning to emerge.

Eventually, another lockdown became inevitable. Mexico shut down again briefly in December 2020.

Today, mask-wearing is up and Mexico has fully vaccinated 10% of its population, compared with 1% in neighboring Guatemala. Things are improving, but Mexico’s road to recovery is long.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

Sumit Ganguly receives funding from the US Department of State.

Dorothy Chin receives funding from the Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Elize Massard da Fonseca receives funding from the Sao Paulo Research Foundation and Brazil's National Research Council (CNPq).

Salvador Vázquez del Mercado receives funding from the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT).

Scott L. Greer has received funding from the United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, US National Science Foundation, and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

Elizabeth J King does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending