adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Vaccine Politics Will Soon Replace Election Politics – BNN

Published

 on


(Bloomberg Opinion) — Just days before the U.S. election, speculation is rife as to whether a Joe Biden victory might herald a big leftward shift, or what kind of chaos a second term for President Donald Trump would bring. The immediate task for either president, however, is likely to be more mundane and less ideological — and guaranteed to displease most Americans.

The issue that is likely to dominate political discussion for some while, even before Jan. 20, is how to handle and distribute new coronavirus treatments. These debates will be all the more pressing because it now appears that winter will bring a big uptick in cases, hospitalizations and, unfortunately, deaths.

There is now growing evidence in favor of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and even some talk of it being available in the U.K. as early as November. Should this same vaccine be rush-approved for use in the U.S.?

Note that on vaccine issues, American public opinion does not map neatly along a simple left/right axis. There are plenty of vaccine skeptics (and advocates) on both sides of the political spectrum, so neither Trump nor Biden can expect their usual allies on this issue.

And who should get the vaccine first? The elderly are more vulnerable, but the young are more likely to spread Covid-19. Some recent results suggest it would be better to vaccinate the young first, but that is less politically likely. Again, it is easy to see potential conflicts over this question, cutting across traditional party lines.

An even more complex problem would arise if one good vaccine is available but other, possibly better, vaccines are imminent. Does everyone get the “good enough” vaccine, disrupting the ability to conduct clinical trials to see if the other vaccines are better? How much patience do Americans have, really?

Americans would probably resent having to wait. But if they end up choosing a lesser quality vaccine, over the long run they might be unhappier yet. It is not clear the U.S. public health bureaucracy is up to the task of approving one vaccine and restructuring the other trials (possibly by paying participants more to stay in, or by shifting to other countries for data) so they can continue.

The issues don’t get any easier if you consider therapeutics such as monoclonal antibodies. Likely they have efficacy, but recent evidence shows they cannot be given too late in the course of treatment. In other words, you cannot wait to see which patients are faring badly and then treat them. At the same time, monoclonal antibodies are difficult to manufacture and distribute, and they are expected to be expensive. So how exactly will they be allocated?

One sensible approach is to give them pre-emptively to those working on the front lines, such as nurses and doctors. Still, many more Americans will want them. It will be difficult for any administration to say they cannot have the treatment because they are too far advanced in their coronavirus infection. If you feel bad, you may be desperate to try them (and they probably won’t hurt you); and even if you feel OK, you may think that it is exactly the right time to take them (soon enough to make a difference, and besides, aren’t Americans famous for demanding overtreatment?).

 For policymakers this is a Catch-22, and even scientifically literate Americans are unlikely to confront this situation with full rationality. Again, many Americans will walk away unhappy. And if Trump is re-elected, he will regret his promise that the antibodies will be available for free to everybody. That just won’t be possible, at least not for a long time.

There is also the prospect that the antibodies will become the province of the very wealthy or the very conscientious. Imagine that you are rich enough or careful enough that you test yourself virtually every day, doing retests to rule out false negatives and false positives. If it turns out you have Covid-19, then you would rush to get your monoclonal antibodies.

Good for you — but that probably won’t be most Americans, even if issues of cost and access are taken care of. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not preparing itself for a system in which most people get tested every day. The result is that the split in health outcomes between the conscientious and the non-conscientious will grow wider yet. And again, the winners and losers will not fall into the standard political coalitions.

With the election in just a few days, most political commentary is focused on ideological polarization. Soon enough, the biggest conflicts could be over the time-honored issues of life and death.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include “Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero.”

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Gould calls Poilievre a ‘fraudster’ over his carbon price warning

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Liberal House leader Karina Gould lambasted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a “fraudster” this morning after he said the federal carbon price is going to cause a “nuclear winter.”

Gould was speaking just before the House of Commons is set to reopen following the summer break.

“What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature, and something that only a fraudster would do,” she said from Parliament Hill.

On Sunday Poilievre said increasing the carbon price will cause a “nuclear winter,” painting a dystopian picture of people starving and freezing because they can’t afford food or heat due the carbon price.

He said the Liberals’ obsession with carbon pricing is “an existential threat to our economy and our way of life.”

The carbon price currently adds about 17.6 cents to every litre of gasoline, but that cost is offset by carbon rebates mailed to Canadians every three months. The Parliamentary Budget Office provided analysis that showed eight in 10 households receive more from the rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, though the office also warned that long-term economic effects could harm jobs and wage growth.

Gould accused Poilievre of ignoring the rebates, and refusing to tell Canadians how he would make life more affordable while battling climate change. The Liberals have also accused the Conservatives of dismissing the expertise of more than 200 economists who wrote a letter earlier this year describing the carbon price as the least expensive, most efficient way to lower emissions.

Poilievre is pushing for the other opposition parties to vote the government down and trigger what he calls a “carbon tax election.”

The recent decision by the NDP to break its political pact with the government makes an early election more likely, but there does not seem to be an interest from either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to have it happen immediately.

Poilievre intends to bring a non-confidence motion against the government as early as this week but would likely need both the Bloc and NDP to support it.

Gould said she has no “crystal ball” over when or how often Poilievre might try to bring down the government

“I know that the end of the supply and confidence agreement makes things a bit different, but really all it does is returns us to a normal minority parliament,” she said. “And that means that we will work case-by-case, legislation-by-legislation with whichever party wants to work with us. I have already been in touch with all of the House leaders in the opposition parties and my job now is to make Parliament work for Canadians.”

She also insisted the government has listened to the concerns raised by Canadians, and received the message when the Liberals lost a Toronto byelection in June in seat the party had held since 1997.

“We certainly got the message from Toronto-St. Paul’s and have spent the summer reflecting on what that means and are coming back to Parliament, I think, very clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything that we do moving forward,” she said.

The Liberals are bracing, however, for the possibility of another blow Monday night, in a tight race to hold a Montreal seat in a byelection there. Voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun are casting ballots today to replace former justice minister David Lametti, who was removed from cabinet in 2023 and resigned as an MP in January.

The Conservatives and NDP are also in a tight race in Elmwood-Transcona, a Winnipeg seat that has mostly been held by the NDP over the last several decades.

There are several key bills making their way through the legislative process, including the online harms act and the NDP-endorsed pharmacare bill, which is currently in the Senate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Voters head to the polls for byelections in Montreal and Winnipeg

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Canadians in two federal ridings are choosing their next member of Parliament today, and political parties are closely watching the results.

Winnipeg’s Elmwood —Transcona seat has been vacant since the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie left federal politics.

The New Democrats are hoping to hold onto the riding and polls suggest the Conservatives are in the running.

The Montreal seat of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun opened up when former justice minister David Lametti left politics.

Polls suggest the race is tight between the Liberal candidate and the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP is also hopeful it can win.

The Conservatives took over a Liberal stronghold seat in another byelection in Toronto earlier this summer, a loss that sent shock waves through the governing party and intensified calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down as leader.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Next phase of federal foreign interference inquiry to begin today in Ottawa

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – The latest phase of a federal inquiry into foreign interference is set to kick off today with remarks from commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue.

Several weeks of public hearings will focus on the capacity of federal agencies to detect, deter and counter foreign interference.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and key government officials took part in hearings earlier this year as the inquiry explored allegations that Beijing tried to meddle in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

Hogue’s interim report, released in early May, said Beijing’s actions did not affect the overall results of the two general elections.

The report said while outcomes in a small number of ridings may have been affected by interference, this cannot be said with certainty.

Trudeau, members of his inner circle and senior security officials are slated to return to the inquiry in coming weeks.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending