Covax, the UN-Backed Vaccine Initiative, Is Reportedly Out of Money

A shipment of vaccines provided for Sudan by COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) is received by local officials at Khartoum International Airport late on August 5, 2021.

EBRAHIM HAMID / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

BYJake Johnson, 

Common Dreams

January 25, 2022

Since the first coronavirus vaccines were administered in late 2020, public health campaigners have been warning that trickles of charitable donations from rich countries to the developing world will never be enough to ensure equitable, worldwide access to the lifesaving shots.

Now the vehicle through which many such donations have flowed — Covax — is reportedly out of money, a potential disaster for low-income countries that have come to depend on the United Nations-backed initiative

The lack of funds is especially worrisome as pharmaceutical companies and the governments of rich nations continue to deny the developing world the ability to produce vaccines on their own soil.

Seth Berkley, chief executive of Gavi — the vaccine alliance that helped form Covax — told the Financial Times on Monday that Covax will no longer be able to accept new dose donations that come without syringes or other components because it doesn’t have any cash left to afford such items, which donor countries often don’t provide.

Asked how much money the project has left, Berkley answered bluntly: “None.”

Combined with its repeated failures to meet delivery targets, Covax’s financial woes added fuel to the argument that a vaccination effort reliant upon the charitable whims of rich countries and profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies was always destined to fall short.

“This is why the charity model of vaccine delivery cannot work. We hoarded doses, made big promises, and yet…” Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, tweeted in response to Berkley’s comments. “Share the technology NOW for mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”

“Pfizer and Moderna are prolonging this pandemic with their greed,” he added, singling out the U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies that produce the only mRNA coronavirus vaccines on the market.

Despite benefiting massively from public funding, the corporations have refused to share their vaccine recipes with the world — and the Biden administration has thus far declined to use its legal authority to force their hands.

The companies have also lobbied aggressively against a patent waiver that would pave the way for developing countries to produce generic coronavirus vaccines without fear of legal retribution. A handful of rich nations — including members of the European Union and the United Kingdom — have sided with Big Pharma by stonewalling the proposed waiver at the World Trade Organization.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Monday that Covax delivered its billionth coronavirus vaccine dose earlier this month, and Berkley predicted in recent remarks that the next billion will roll out in the coming four or five months.

Since its inception in 2020, the vaccine delivery effort has been hindered by internal dysfunction as well as pharmaceutical companies not living up to their contractual obligations, leaving Covax with fewer doses than expected. And doses have also frequently arrived in recipient countries later than planned or close to their expiration dates, leading to significant waste.

“Don’t get me wrong, Covax delivering a billion doses is a great achievement. But their aim was to deliver two billion [in 2021],” Max Lawson, head of inequality policy at Oxfam International and co-chair of the People’s Vaccine Alliance, noted last week.

“In our view,” he added, “the key problem is a deep lack of accountability, combined with a supine naivete by Covax leadership in response to pharma companies and rich nations. This led to overly rosy projections throughout 2021 and this is continuing today.”

Berkley said last week that Covax will need $5.2 billion to fund its vaccination efforts this year, as the world continues to fight the highly transmissible Omicron variant — and looks ahead to potential new mutations in the future.

“We need this money now because we know that without it, we will face further delays in accessing and securing supplies and helping countries deliver vaccines into arms,” said Berkley.

But experts and campaigners argue Covax’s struggles make clear that far more ambitious action — from technology transfers to suspension of intellectual property protections to regional manufacturing initiatives — is needed to produce enough vaccine doses to meet global needs and ensure equal distribution.

To date, just 9.7% of people in low-income countries have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose, according to Our World in Data. One recent analysis estimated that the world needs around 22 billion additional mRNA doses to end the global pandemic.

“The way to end a pandemic is to close the inequalities that are existing,” Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, said during a virtual event last week. “Instead, rich countries have chosen to take a different path of expanding inequalities.”

“We are not going to be out of this,” she added, “until we close those inequalities.”

U.S. Donates 400 Million More Vaccine Doses

January 26, 2022  By Taegan Goddard 

“White House officials announced Wednesday that the United States has donated more than 400 million doses of coronavirus vaccines to other countries under the Biden administration,” the Washington Post reports.

USA

Canceling student debt is a women's issue — we hold two-thirds of the burden

BY SARA GUILLERMO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/26/22

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

© Getty Images


News this week that lawmakers are pressuring the administration to release a promised memo outlining his authority to cancel student debt is encouraging to many young people, especially women, who don't see their actions as mattering in politics.

While many young women may not think of themselves as political, there's one subject that unites them. It's student loan debt. I am hopeful that more people will want to discuss this issue as part of a generational shift in politics. It’s time for young people to broaden the conversation about this issue, including on social media with #VentYourDebt.

How bold would it be if this administration canceled student debt? I ask because we need big, bold, audacious ideas to change the political landscape for young women. Student loan debt is a sure-fire way to ignite their political interest.

I lead an organization readying a generation of young women for political office. I’m still paying off my student loans and I often meet women in a similar position. When I meet young women who don’t see politics as relevant to them, I ask them about their debt. It starts a constructive conversation about how they need to be in power to change things.

One of the things I hear most often from young women who want a political career is “I want to go to law school.” It is not always a bad idea, but it also comes with a preconceived notion of what a political leader looks like. It is also a guaranteed way to take on a hefty student debt load. And there are other ways to learn how to lead, and to gather the experience you need to win an election.

The news that loan servicer Navient agreed to cancel $1.7 billion in student loans is a drop in the ocean. The nation's student loan ledger now totals more than $1.7 trillion. Women hold about two-thirds of that debt. While college education costs went up 103 percent since 1987, median income rose by 14 percent in the same time.

A recent study showed women hold an average of $31,276 in student debt. That leaves a monthly payment of about $307 the year after graduation. Women graduating with a bachelor’s degree expect to earn $35,338 on average. That’s 20 percent less than men. It makes meeting the loan obligation challenging. It’s harder than ever with inflation pushing up the cost of living.

We’re holding women back from reaching their full potential. This is a bipartisan issue. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill on student loans last year. It's no coincidence that she is a young woman. And young women are growing tired of waiting for Congress, which is majority male, to act on this issue.

Women appear more likely to work across the aisle to pass policies. They show more spirit of collaboration. They seem to get more policy written and passed than men do. If we want gender parity in elected office, we need women to win on both sides of the aisle. If we want to address student debt it seems we need them to win for us too.

The cost of running for office makes it hard to run and win, though. Many city council campaigns raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. It costs millions of dollars to win a congressional seat. That's why many young women choose to start out local. They run for a school board or a community board and then build their experience from there. It's not all about running for office, either. They might gain experience working on somebody else's campaign. They might work for a legislator. Or they might find their political power in other ways like by organizing in their community. But they are demonstrating more grit than I've seen in more than a decade of doing this work. They see the stakes.

Meanwhile, Congress can expand Pell Grants for low-income students to reduce their debt. Legislators can increase funding for public colleges and universities. The Department of Education can help women enroll more in income-driven repayment options. Institutions can address both the academic and holistic financial needs of students. That includes childcare. It's going to take a huge effort to solve the student debt crisis. But we all know it is worth it for women and for society at large.

Sara Guillermo is CEO of IGNITE, America's largest and most diverse organization for young women's political leadership.

Biden must release a nearly year-old student debt memo and 'immediately' cancel up to $50,000 in loans before payments resume, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and 83 other Democrats say

Ayelet Sheffey

FEBRUARY 4: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a press conference about student debt outside the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2021 in Washington, DC. Also pictured, L-R, Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). The group of Democrats re-introduced their resolution calling on President Joe Biden to take executive action to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for federal student loan borrowers. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

85 Democratic lawmakers called on Biden to release a long-awaited memo on his legal ability to cancel student debt broadly.

They also urged him to "immediately" cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower before payments resume on May 1.

Redacted documents found Biden has had the memo since at least April but is choosing not to release it.

It's been eight months since White House officials saw a memo detailing whether President Joe Biden can legally cancel student debt broadly. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers are tired of waiting for its results.

On Wednesday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, along with Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Katie Porter, led 79 of their Democratic colleagues in demanding Biden release the memo outlining his legal ability to cancel federal student debt broadly, along with "immediately" canceling up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower.

"Publicly releasing the memo outlining your existing authority on cancelling student debt and broadly doing so is crucial to making a meaningful difference in the lives of current students, borrowers, and families," the lawmakers wrote. "It has been widely reported that the Department of Education has had this memo since April 5, 2020 after being directed to draft it."

White House chief of staff Ron Klain told Politico last April that Biden had asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to create a memo on the president's legal authority to forgive $50,000 in student loans per person. As Insider reported in November, redacted documents obtained by the Debt Collective, the nation's first debtors' union, indicated that the memo has existed since April 5, and White House officials have seen what is says but have yet to make its contents public.

Even before those documents were revealed, though, Democrats were calling for the release of the memo to give 43 million federal student-loan borrowers needed relief. In October, Minnesota Rep. Omar gave the Education Department two weeks to release it, but that deadline came and went with no response.

"Millions of borrowers across the country are desperately asking for student debt relief," Omar had told Insider. "We know the President can do it with the stroke of a pen. We were told over six months ago that they were just waiting on a memo to determine whether they would give relief, and weeks since we sent a letter asking them to do so. Release the memo. Cancel student debt."

New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez said during a roundtable on Wednesday that "it would be good to be publicly known" whether Biden has the legal authority to cancel student debt.

"I have not read the memo, but it is my view that the memo should ultimately certify that the president has the authority to do exactly what we're advocating for," Menendez said.

And beyond the release of the memo, the push for broad student-loan forgiveness continues to amplify. As Warren previously told Insider, her proposal to cancel $50,000 in student loans per borrower would completely eliminate debt for 36 million, or 84%, of all federal borrowers.

"This is the single most effective executive action President Biden could take to jumpstart our economy and begin to narrow the racial wealth gap," she said.

While Biden promised during his campaign to approve $10,000 in student-loan forgiveness per borrower, he has remained largely silent on that promise since taking office. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said Biden would sign a bill passed by Congress to cancel student debt, but his promise to do so "immediately" remains unfulfilled. He even ignored a question on that promise during his first solo press conference of the year.

Still, while Biden extended the pause on student-loan payments through May 1, giving borrowers an additional 90 days of relief, lawmakers want to ensure millions of Americans will not be stuck with monthly bills they cannot afford.

They wrote that "eliminating debt before the pause ends is a commonsense step so that millions of borrowers have more breathing room in their family budgets and our national economy is not further held back."

A Majority of Voters Support Extending the Pause on Student Loan Payments

By Ahmad Ali

In December of last year, the Biden administration announced it would extend the pause on federally-held student loan payments through May 1st of 2022. New polling from Data for Progress finds that, by a +35-point margin, a majority of voters support the current pause on student loan payments. Support includes a majority of Democrats and Independents by margins of +76 and +31 points, respectively.






We also find that, by a +26-point margin, a majority of voters support extending the pause on federally-held student loan payments through December 31, 2022 — the end of the year. Support includes a majority of Democrats and Independents by margins of +68 and +19 points, respectively.

Ahmad Ali (@UhmadAli) is Press Secretary at Data for Progress. 

JANUARY 26, 2022

 

Over 80 Democrats Say It’s Time for Biden to Cancel $50,000 of Student Debt

Rep. Ayanna Pressley speaks as Sen. Elizabeth Warren looks on during a press conference about student debt outside the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

DREW ANGERER / GETTY IMAGES

BYSharon Zhang, Truthout

PUBLISHEDJanuary 27, 2022

Over 80 Democrats have demanded that President Joe Biden cancel a portion of student debt and release an Education Department memo on his legal authority to do so, in an effort led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) this week.

In a letter to the president, the lawmakers wrote that Biden should immediately cancel up to $50,000 of student debt per borrower – a move that would boost the economy and provide a lifeline to the millions of Americans with student loans. The lawmakers emphasized that the president should act with urgency, as student loan payments are due to restart in three months.

“Canceling $50,000 of student debt would give 36 million Americans permanent relief and aid the millions more who will eventually resume payments their best chance at thriving in our recovering economy,” the lawmakers said. “In light of high COVID-19 case counts and corresponding economic disruptions, restarting student loan payments without this broad cancellation would be disastrous for millions of borrowers and their families.”

Data released on Thursday shows that the U.S. economy was on an upswing last year despite the pandemic; restarting student loan payments could impede that process. The data also demonstrates that the payment pause, which was in place for all of 2021, didn’t stop the economy from beginning to recover from the impact of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, resuming payments will have an enormous impact on many borrowers’ lives. Thousands of borrowers have reported that student loan payments take a large portion of their income, making it difficult to afford bills and essentials. A recent report for Warren and Schumer found that borrowers will lose out on $85 billion annually once loan payments resume.

The burden of student debt is holding back nearly an entire generation from being able to make financial decisions freely, even impeding upon borrowers’ ability to buy a house. Canceling this debt could raise homeownership rates and credit scores; such a move would also likely result in a higher gross domestic product (GDP).

“[T]he enduring weight of student loan debt has negated opportunities for many borrowers to truly transform their lives and our country,” the lawmakers wrote. “More than 80 percent of borrowers with student loan debt report that it holds them back from being able to afford a home. Without this debt, many would be in a better position to begin saving for homeownership as well as retirement and starting a business.”

The lawmakers also urged Biden to release a memo assessing the legality of canceling student debt via executive order. Although the Education Department prepared the memo in April, the administration refused to publicly acknowledge it for months. Ultimately, the existence of the memo was uncovered by the Debt Collective through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the contents of the document were completely redacted.

“Publicly releasing the memo outlining your existing authority on cancelling student debt and broadly doing so is crucial to making a meaningful difference in the lives of current students, borrowers, and their families,” the lawmakers wrote. Debt activists have also been organizing efforts to pressure Biden on the issue.

The Biden administration’s refusal to release the memo has led debt activists to speculate that the document confirms that the president has the legal authority to cancel student debt with a stroke of his pen – but that he doesn’t actually want to do so.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt per borrower, a promise he has repeatedly come under fire for breaking. Last week, Biden dodged a question from a journalist who asked him about his plan to cancel student loans during a press conference; the president answered a second question from the reporter, said nothing about the student loan question and promptly left the conference.

Many progressives and activists say that even cancelling up to $10,000 of debt per borrower wouldn’t be enough. Student debt cancellation advocates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who signed on to the Democrats’ letter this week, have encouraged Biden to cancel student debt completely.

America's embarrassing 5G rollout highlights tech policy shortcomings

BY DAN MAHAFFEE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/26/22

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

© Getty

“It wasn’t our finest hour, I think, as a country,” said Doug Parker, the CEO of American Airlines, following the latest shambolic showdown between airlines, telecoms and their regulators over the rollout of 5G service and the risk to aviation safety.

Certainly, Parker’s viewpoint is driven from his perspective of running an airline, but the broader point is made. At a time when we increasingly agree that we are in competition with other great powers, how can we not act with urgency to not only fix problems that slow innovation and stifle growth but also to demonstrate that democracies can respond competently to modern challenges? If we’re “hitting the gas” in a global race for leadership, let’s not also keep Washington’s foot on the brake.

The botched 5G rollout illustrates the need for better coordination of the various stakeholders involved in the deployment of advanced technologies and the role government plays in addressing various trade-offs. In this case, the FCC’s bold vision and $80-plus billion in spectrum fees paid by AT&T and Verizon sped the rollout of 5G wireless networks that will transform our connectivity. At the same time, the FAA has an understandable responsibility for continuing to make U.S. skies the safest in the world.

Yet, while warnings about 5G were made years ago, by both aircraft companies and international regulators, it took the actual deployment of the networks to force action. Threats of chaos in U.S. skies and the cancelation of flights were a stark contrast to the lack of any such issue in the other international airspaces where 5G networks operate.

While airlines are loath to shoulder additional costs to shield planes and telecoms are eager to turn on the networks for which they paid billions, why was there not the proactive leadership and coordination to address this? Why was there no real-world or laboratory testing to answer the scientific questions? How was this not discussed when the airlines were receiving billions in taxpayer dollars during the pandemic?

Sure, I'm asking these questions in hindsight, but the answers can inform policy being made now. The Biden administration and Congress align on policies focused on innovation leadership and securing supply chains. As they consider these proposals, they should consider too how these new programs and authorities related to innovation and research and development can move rapidly to build public-private partnerships and better coordinate discussions surrounding advanced technologies. The fact that the 5G rollout almost precipitated such a crisis suggests a problem, but we have to embrace the opportunity to fix it.

Multiple areas of technology and innovation leadership are critical for our future economic prosperity and national security. For example, we still need more real-world testing for future 5G technologies, and both our friends and competitors are moving ahead on strategy for 6G. Similar investments and policy coordination are needed for the future of technologies from artificial intelligence to biotech, quantum computing to critical minerals. Doing so is not an invitation to mimic China’s system and its blurred lines between government and business, but to demonstrate that ours can also address the policymaking challenges and opportunities presented by technological innovation.

Senate panel to vote on Biden's FCC, FTC nominees

While we do not need, and should never want, industry responding solely to Washington instead of the marketplace, future-proofing our country will require coordination between policymakers and the private sector. Coordinating technology policy and real-world deployment in Washington is part of a larger challenge including R&D support, patent policies and the shape of the future workforce. None of these can be addressed solely by the government or the private sector, nor will we find the right answers when communication breaks down between them.

Broken policymaking and counterproductive policies can often be solved, but the time and effort to do so are not a luxury that we have. With a global competition underway, competence matters. The U.S. has long been seen as a leader, but bureaucratic breakdowns and unforced errors in policymaking will drag us back as we need to push forward.

Dan Mahaffee is the senior vice president & director of Policy at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress, where he leads its Geotech program.

Pelosi fast-tracks bill to funnel more weapons to Ukraine

January 26, 2022 

 BY STEVE SWEENEY

PEOPLES WORLD

CPUSA

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has fast-tracked Ukrainian weapons funding legislation. | Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call via AP

U.S. officials are planning to rush through a major bill that will dramatically bolster weapons allocations for Ukraine and increase funding for anti-Russian propaganda and intelligence, it was announced on Tuesday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was fast-tracking the bill, called the “Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022,” straight to the House of Representatives. It will see $500 million from the Foreign Military Financing program sent to Ukraine for 2022.

The bill could be voted on as early as next week.

The legislation would give Ukraine priority for excess defense equipment transfer and aid the country’s cyber defense, paving the way for U.S. sanctions in the event of any cyber attack.

Funds would also be spent on anti-Russian propaganda channeled through media outlets, including the CIA-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which was established during the Cold War as an explicitly anti-communist news organization pumping propaganda into the Soviet-aligned states of Eastern Europe.

The bill also authorizes sanctions if President Joe Biden believes Russia has engaged in a “significant escalation in hostilities.” It could see Russian President Vladimir Putin targeted, along with senior government and military officials.

Russian financial institutions, energy producers, and those involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which some say is one of the reasons for the U.S. drive to war, would also be threatened.

The European Union and NATO have joined Washington in its aggressive drive to war with Russia, ratcheting up the pressure on a number of fronts.

The U.S. has delivered 90 tons of “lethal aid” as weapons flow into Ukraine while mobilizing war ships to the Black Sea and a surge in troops encircling Russia.

At the same time, a propaganda war waged through Western mainstream media has sought to portray Russia as the aggressor, despite Moscow’s insistence that it has no plans for military intervention in Ukraine.

Much of this has been dismissed as “Western hysteria” by Russia, which has accused intelligence services of running a “psy-ops” campaign to soften public opinion for war.

On Tuesday, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said that Ukrainian officials had been informed and explicitly involved in its written response to Russia’s proposals on security guarantees.

He said that any Russian incursion would be met with “a swift, severe, and united response” from the U.S. and its allies.

Morning Star

READ OTHER UKRAINE COVERAGE:

> The West, not Russia, is responsible for the war danger in Ukraine

> Biden and NATO raise the stakes in deadly Ukraine war gamble

> Who is invading whom? U.S. forces already in Eastern Europe

Here's What Those 'Bunker-Defeat' Rockets The U.S. Sent To Ukraine Are Actually Capable Of

The M141 Bunker Defeat Munition is a relatively obscure weapon in the U.S. military's arsenal with capabilities beyond what's it name might suggest.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK 

JANUARY 26, 2022
THE WAR ZONE

The U.S. government, among others, has been stepping up deliveries of weapons and other military aid to Ukraine amid increasingly worrisome signs that Russia may be about to launch a new invasion of that country. The spotlight has primarily been on shipments of guided anti-tank missiles, especially U.S.-made Javelins and British-supplied NLAWs. Announcements that Latvian and Lithuanian authorities plan to send American-produced Stinger shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles have also drawn attention, but to a lesser degree. However, the U.S. military has recently highlighted the transfer of pallet loads of a more obscure weapon system with an unusual name that doesn't necessarily reflect its full capabilities: the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition.

The U.S. Air Force first released pictures showing dozens of M141s being prepared for shipment to Ukraine at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Jan. 22, 2022. Those weapons, along with Javelins and small arms ammunition, arrived at Boryspil International Airport outside of Kyiv yesterday onboard a National Airlines Boeing 747 aircraft flying under a contract with U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).

USAF
A pallet of M141 Bunker Defeat Munitions bound for Ukraine at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Jan. 21, 2022.

US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
M141s, along with Javelins and small arms ammunition, seen inside a National Airlines Boeing 747 after it arrived at Boryspil International Airport earlier today.

US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The National Airlines 747 carrying the military aid for Ukraine at Boryspil.

The M141 is a very different weapon from the Javelin, an advanced guided anti-tank missile that has become a hallmark of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and that you can read more about here. The Bunker Defeat Munition (BDM) is a disposable single-shot launcher preloaded with an unguided 83mm rocket-propelled projectile designed to engage targets at relatively short ranges.

Development of what was originally known as the Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon-Disposable (SMAW-D) started in the 1990s in response to requirements from the U.S. Army. The service was primarily looking for a weapon that would give small units an additional tool for dealing with enemy fortifications on the battlefield, such as pillbox-type concrete bunkers and earthen berms.

McDonnell Douglas initially lead the project, before that company merged with Boeing in 1997. Talley Defense Systems, now a U.S.-based division of Norwegian defense contractor Nammo, subsequently acquired the design. The SMAW-D beat out a competing design based on the Swedish AT-4, a disposable single-shot anti-tank weapon that is also in Army inventory. The service took the first deliveries of what it subsequently designated the M141 in 1999.

M141 is derived from Mk 153 Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW), a reloadable shoulder-fired weapon that McDonnell Douglas developed from the Israeli-designed B-300 for the U.S. Marine Corps in the 1980s. The BDM fires a so-called high-explosive dual-purpose (HEDP) round that is similar to the one available for the SMAW, but with a redesigned rocket motor that reduces its range. The M141 has an effective firing range of up to 250 meters, while the latest versions of the SMAW can reliably engage threats out to 500 meters.

Overall, the BDM is more akin to the most modern variants of the venerable M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon (LAW), a disposable, single-shot, shoulder-fired launcher pre-loaded with one of a number of types of rockets, including an anti-structure type. For added context, the most recent versions of the shoulder-fired Javelin missile have an effective range of up to 4,000 meters.

However, the M141 definitely still has its uses and could be a handy addition to Ukraine's arsenal. While the weapon was designed to engage enemy fortifications, its HEDP round can be employed against other kinds of structures and fortified positions. For instance, in the early phases of U.S. operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, American troops used BDMs to collapse caves that Taliban militants and Al Qaeda terrorists were using as fighting positions.

BDMs can be used to blast holes in walls and otherwise breach obstacles, creating alternate pathways around the battlefield for friendly forces, as well. These weapons also have a secondary capability against light armored and unarmored vehicles and could be used to destroy caches of ammunition, fuel, and other similar materiel.

For Ukraine's military, M141s could give small units additional immediate firepower, especially against troops and light vehicles in urban areas that might be using structures for cover. BDMs might be useful for groups ambushing convoys of unarmored support and supply vehicles, or conducting raids against enemy encampments, missions that Ukrainian troops might find themselves increasingly engaged in should Russian forces push deep into the country's territory. It is important to note that this weapon does have a significant backblast while firing, which precludes it from being employed from inside confined spaces, such as a room inside a building, forcing the user to expose themselves at least to some degree.



Beyond their utility against various different target sets, the M141s have the benefit of being easier to train personnel to use compared to more complex guided missile systems, such as Javelin. This relative ease of use also opens up the possibility of distributing them on a wider basis and utilizing them, where appropriate, in lieu of missiles, helping to preserve stocks of those weapons for higher-priority targets.

Regardless of how Ukraine might issue its new M141s and employ them, the most important thing is that, despite their name, they are not limited to engaging bunkers and similar fortifications. While the BDM is in no way a substitute for anti-tank guided missiles, they are still very much multi-purpose weapons that could give even small continents of Ukrainian troops additional capabilities and capacity to engage a variety of targets in any future conflict.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

C-17 LOADS OF ANTI-TANK MISSILES ARRIVE IN UKRAINE COURTESY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

By Joseph Trevithick and Brett TingleyPosted in THE WAR ZONE

UKRAINIAN TROOPS TEST JAVELIN MISSILE AGAINST RUSSIAN CAGE-STYLE IMPROVISED TANK ARMOR

By Thomas NewdickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

THE ARMY RUSHES 1,000 RECOILLESS RIFLES TO TROOPS, BUT WHAT'S A "CARL GUSTAF" ANYWAY?

By Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

US MARINES MIGHT SOON GET NEW VERSIONS OF THE VIETNAM-ERA M72 ROCKET LAUNCHER

By Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

U.S. CLEARS THE WAY FOR TRANSFERRING EX-AFGHAN MI-17 HELICOPTERS TO UKRAINE: REPORT

By Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

 

Workers Just Won a Rare Supreme Court Victory Against Wall Street

BYMATTHEW CUNNINGHAM-COOK

JACOBIN

01.26.2022

The Supreme Court isn’t a friend of workers. So a recent ruling that retirees can sue employers who help investment firms rip them off with high fees and poor performance is a rare and crucial win.

A recent Supreme Court ruling gives 401(k) plan participants the option to take legal action against employers for including high-fee, high-risk investments in their 401(k) lineup. (Chenyu Guan / Unsplash)

Aunanimous Supreme Court ruling Monday in Hughes v. Northwestern University ensures that Americans will still be able to sue employers and Wall Street banks that bleed dry their retirement accounts — a landmark precedent in protecting the $7.3 trillion Americans hold in 401(k) accounts.

The 8-0 ruling, written by Sonia Sotomayor, found that 401(k) plan participants could continue to take legal action against employers for including high-fee, high-risk investments in their 401(k) lineup, even if they also included lower-fee, lower risk options.

The decision could be a blow against powerful private equity industry titans, who for years have been aiming to convince 401(k) plans to include their high-fee, high-risk offerings. Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman has said accessing retirees’ 401(k) accounts was “one of our dreams.”

With 3.5 million American seniors being unable to afford the cost of prescription drugs, and 5.2 million elders who are food insecure, the new ruling could trigger additional litigation that forces improved governance in 401(k)s — potentially saving Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in collective fees.

“It’s going to affect massive numbers of people,” said Jerry Schlichter, the St Louis-based attorney who brought the Hughes case before the court. “Because the 401(k) is America’s retirement system now.”

Currently, the median 401(k) balance for Americans sixty-five and older is just $64,548. That amount could be as much as 40 percent higher, if it wasn’t for fees paid to Wall Street.

A Rare Win for Ordinary People

The ruling represents a rare victory for ordinary people in a Supreme Court that has bent aggressively to uphold the rights of corporations to fleece ordinary people. During its 2020–21 term, the court ruled in favor of the positions advocated by the US Chamber of Commerce, the powerful big business lobby group, 83 percent of the time.

That included another retirement case last year, Thole v. US Bank, in which retired US Bank employees claimed the company had mismanaged workers’ pension funds and engaged in self-dealing. But the high court ruled that because the plaintiffs’ benefits had not yet been reduced, they did not yet have standing to bring the case to court. That decision limited the ability of people in defined-benefit pensions to legally intervene to save their pensions before their savings are looted.

By contrast, the new ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern University does the opposite for 401(k) plans, which unlike pensions do not guarantee a defined retirement benefit, but do guarantee employers will make contributions to a savings account. The new ruling allowing plaintiffs to zero in on high fees being routinely extracted from their savings — which Schlichter says shows the business-allied court at least acknowledges how the modern-day concept of retirement has changed.

“My father was a civil servant, an aircraft mechanic,” he said. “When he died, my mom lived on her paycheck [from his defined-benefit pension.] She didn’t need to figure out stocks. The days of that kind of standard pension are gone. If the fees are high, it costs employees their retirement assets.”

In the case, Abigail Hughes and other current and former employees sued Northwestern University for including high-fee plan options in their 401(k) plan options, which materially hurt plan participants’ 401(k) balances.

Schlichter pointed out that in this case, Wall Street had aggressively supported Northwestern University’s ability to include such high-fee options.

Several major financial industry groups submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of the university. That included the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, a trade group representing corporate pension plan managers; the American Benefits Council, which represents large employers including some mutual funds; and the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), a major manager of 401(k) plans.

The Investment Company Institute, a trade group for mutual funds that profit from 401(k) fees, noted in their own amicus brief that the “increased threat of litigation… is causing plan administrators/fiduciaries to adopt bright-line rules that exclude many classes of investments from defined contribution plan investment lineups, to the potential detriment of both plans and plan participants.”

When asked by the Daily Poster why he thinks that Wall Street interests sought to stop the Northwestern lawsuit, Schlichter said, “They want to maximize income at the expense of American workers and retirees.”

James Watkins III, an attorney who has been involved in 401(k) litigation, said that the ruling will force accountability from Wall Street.

“I gave a presentation one time at an event, and I was eating lunch, and the guy behind me said ‘very impressive presentation,’” said Watkins. “He introduced himself and said he was the CEO of a company. One of the things I have told employers is that you really need to provide plan participants with a basic education class. He told me, ‘Our company will never voluntarily give investor education to employees because they would realize how bad the plan is and then they would call you and you would sue us.’ This decision today forces them to rethink that.”

An Unsavory “Menu of Options”

Hughes v. Northwestern University focused on how many 401(k) and 403(b) plans offer an extraordinary amount of options that people can choose from — in Northwestern’s case, over four hundred. The list of options in the plan have typically included both low-cost options for those savvy enough to recognize them — but they also included high-risk, high-fee actively managed funds often selected by people who do not have the time to do in-depth research on their retirement plans.

Northwestern, in its arguments, claimed that by including low-cost, low-fee options in their “menu of options,” they mitigated the impact of including bad options, too.

In March 2020, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the plaintiffs, agreeing with Northwestern’s argument — a decision that astounded Watkins.

“The “menu of options” argument is inconsistent with ERISA,” or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Watkins said. “Section 404(a) of ERISA clearly states that each investment option offered within the plan must be prudent both individually and collectively.”

Watkins’s analysis mirrored that of Sotomayor, who wrote in her ruling, “In Tibble, this Court interpreted ERISA’s duty of prudence in light of the common law of trusts and determined that ‘a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty of some kind to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones.’”

In its 2015 Tibble v. Edison International decision, the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of plaintiffs seeking accountability from their 401(k)s. Schlichter, the Hughes lawyer, brought that case, too.

“It’s extremely exciting to have a pro-investor ruling come out of this Supreme Court,” said Chris Tobe, a financial analyst who works with lawyers seeking accountability from 401(k) plans. “Their decision in Thole was disappointing. The fact that it was 8-0 and Sotomayor wrote this opinion shows that even conservative people in 401(k) plans don’t think that they should pay excessive fees.”

You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Daily Poster, here.     

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Matthew Cunningham-Cook has written for Labor Notes, the Public Employee Press, Al Jazeera America, and the Nation.

Censoring Joe Rogan Is No Solution to Vaccine Misinformation

There’s a campaign underway to kick podcast host Joe Rogan off Spotify for spreading COVID misinformation. But Rogan at his worst couldn’t do as much damage to public trust in science as the political and scientific establishment has during the pandemic.

Joe Rogan recording the first season of The Joe Rogan Podcast; Neil Young performing in Mountain View, California, 2005. 

(Vivian Zink / Syfy / NBCU Photo Bank / NBCUniversal / Tim Mosenfelder via Getty Images)

BYBRANKO MARCETIC
01.26.2022

Another month, another Joe Rogan controversy. For the past few weeks, the podcaster and his perch at the audio streaming giant Spotify have been the subject of yet another outcry, this time over his contributions to pandemic vaccine misinformation.

Less than two weeks ago, a group of two hundred seventy credentialed figures — most of whom, it seems, aren’t actually medical doctors as some of the headlines suggested — demanded that Spotify censor Rogan, or in their words, “take action against the mass-misinformation events which continue to occur on its platform.” Rogan’s show and other vehicles for “false and societally harmful assertions,” they wrote, “damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals.” Now the controversy’s drawn in Neil Young, of all people, who has demanded his music be pulled from the streaming service in protest.

Usually, in arguing against this kind of thing, I would point to the dangers of letting unaccountable bureaucrats in a profit-seeking company pick what counts as “false and societally harmful assertions” and what doesn’t, especially since they get it wrong or make decisions colored by their own biases so often. But there’s a more fundamental issue going on here — namely, that censoring Rogan likely wouldn’t do what his most ardent critics want it to, and is at worst a distraction.

No one can argue with a straight face Rogan’s show is a reliable source of information when it comes the pandemic. He’s told young people they don’t need to get vaccinated, promoted widespread use of ivermectin as a treatment for the virus, and generally hosted a collection of right-leaning quacks and cranks hawking various degrees of COVID denial. And despite his regular reminders that he’s a “fucking moron” who no one should listen to, I have no doubt Rogan’s show has some impact on people’s decision-making in the pandemic, though what and how much exactly is an open question.

Still, there’s something to Rogan’s defense of himself: “If you’re getting vaccine advice from me, is that really my fault?”

Or to put it a different way: How is it that in an era where we are surrounded by the miracles of unprecedented technological and scientific advancement, millions of people have chosen to trust a stoned MMA enthusiast during health crisis over public health experts?
Pointing Fingers

The scramble to gag Rogan strikes me as a misguided, panicky response to the frustrating stubbornness of both the pandemic and widespread vaccine resistance in the United States, if not outright misdirection on the issue. Because if we were being honest about the situation, we’d admit that Rogan’s just one of many purveyors of COVID misinformation that “add to the problem,” as his would-be censors put it — and that the others include a who’s who of liberal politicians, public health officials, and mainstream press outlets, the very sources we’re told are the most trustworthy and mainstream voices on the pandemic, and who are pointing the finger at Rogan now.

That’s not a new or groundbreaking point nearly two years into this thing, but it’s a fact. From the very start, the messaging on the pandemic from these quarters has been abysmal — politically calibrated, contradictory, and smugly confident in its wrongness. First, the coronavirus was obviously nothing to worry about, then avoiding it became the most important thing in the world. Everyone knew masks were useless and not worth wearing, until everyone knew it was the opposite.


Some of this owed to the initial lack of information about the virus, as well as its constantly evolving nature. But as that last, entirely unforced error by public health experts shows, far too much of it wasn’t.

There are too many instances of this incessant intellectual whiplash to list, especially in the United States. Public health experts overwhelmingly agreed a national stay-at-home order was needed to stop the virus, until the liberal, science-believing candidate they backed won and ruled it out, at which point they never mentioned it again. Trump’s pledge to roll out a vaccine within a year was an objective falsehood, to the point that it was “fact-checked” at the time, only for media outlets to criticize him for rolling it out too slowly once exactly that happened. His challenger’s liberal running mate publicly aired a vaccine hesitancy talking point, an attitude that became unconscionable and beyond the pale among her supporters once she entered the White House.

Joe Biden spread pandemic misinformation on CNN as president, and all but declared “independence” from the virus in a major speech just as a new, more dangerous strain took hold in the country. More than once, his administration has claimed basics like sending tests to American homes is impossible, only to reverse itself and do that very thing.

The government’s top science advisor, Anthony Fauci, has contradicted himself and admitted to intentionally lying or fudging the numbers in his public messaging, before repeatedly prevaricating before Congress about his agency’s role in the kind of risky research that we still can’t rule out was the source of the virus. At times, he’s sounded like a pharma lobbyist defending the intellectual property rights of companies over the desperate public health need to get the world vaccinated as quickly as possible. To top it off, this publicly discredited figure, trusted mostly by the cable news–obsessed base of the current president’s party, then claimed attacking him was actually attacking science itself.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the agency meant to give people the cold, hard facts of health advice about this pandemic while staying above the political fray, spent the second half of last year publicly undermining itself. First, under pressure from lawmakers and some public health experts, it relaxed guidance mandates for the vaccinated early last year mere months after refusing to do so. The move led to lower mask uptake overall and for state governments to scramble to update their policies, with many relaxing mandates — before the CDC reversed itself again a couple months later, under criticism it was out of step with other expert bodies. Since then, the CDC halved the isolation period for those who caught COVID, making the US quarantine period completely out of step with other countries and what we know about the virus.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: Has Rogan’s podcast really done more to “damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility” of medical advice than this non-exhaustive litany of own-goals from the experts?

And it’s not like Rogan is the only media personality pushing denialist talking points, for which a vocal constituency has been created over the past year. Just a few days ago, as thousands of Americans were dying a day, journalist Bari Weiss told Bill Maher on his HBO show that it was “time to end it” — referring to the pandemic restrictions that exist almost nowhere in the present-day United States — and that the pandemic is “not real anymore.” (The irony that Weiss was unmasked and seated next to two people in an indoor studio while getting whooping applause from a nearby crowd seemed lost on everyone). Should Maher lose his show over this? Is HBO committing a grave crime by not censoring him, or even platforming him at all? Or do these questions for some reason apply to Rogan and Rogan alone?

As always, censorship and similarly heavy-handed measures are the desperate resort of someone who refuses or has simply given up on tackling the root causes of a problem. The liberal calls for internet censorship as a means for dealing with the virus has been a depressing staple of the US pandemic response. Meanwhile, the structural factors that keep people unvaccinated and mistrustful of public health — a private insurance-based health care system, a lack of money and time, decades of neoliberal policy — go largely unmentioned. Just as well, otherwise people might actually start demanding some serious changes to the US economy.

If Spotify booted Rogan and the US government banished him to the Arctic, you would still get COVID misinformation and mistrust, because of both these factors and the messaging failure that’s been endemic to US institutions throughout these confusing, frustrating two years. Demand that Rogan be censored if you like, as illiberal as that is. But let’s not pretend it’s a solution.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Branko Marcetic is a Jacobin staff writer and the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. He lives in Chicago, Illinois.

Can Honduras’ new leader spark hope for the troubled Northern Triangle?


Hobbled by widespread corruption and a pervasive drug trade that fuels a seemingly endless cycle of violence, Honduras will swear in its first female head of state on Thursday.

But President-elect Xiomara Castro, who has pledged to clean up her country, won’t be the only powerful woman drawing attention that day: She’ll take office as US Vice President Kamala Harris—the White House point person for the Northern Triangle—looks on.

Both face the daunting challenge of helping to reverse the root causes of outward migration from the region of around thirty-three million people. Jason Marczak, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, weighs in on how they plan to tackle that task—and whether they’ll succeed.
How did Castro pledge to reform Honduras, and what expectations does she face?

Castro enters office following a campaign in which improving transparency and combating corruption were her top priorities. She has already committed to reaching out to the United Nations for help setting up an anti-corruption commission. Success here is fundamental to the country’s future, since Honduras ranks among the world’s most corrupt countries—on par with Iraq and Zimbabwe—according to Transparency International. Corruption is pervasive across government, with pandemic procurement offering further opportunities for crooked officials. The outgoing president, Juan Orlando Hernández, even faces possible extradition to the United States for drug trafficking. Hopes are high that she will make inroads, but a political feud in congress may present roadblocks for her agenda.
What role has Honduras played in contributing to broader regional instability—and how much will Castro feel pressured to reverse those dynamics?

The greatest threat to stability in Central America is currently in Nicaragua, just south of Honduras. There, President Daniel Ortega—who fraudulently assumed another term in office this month—is systematically dismantling democratic freedoms and civil liberties. Nicaraguans are fleeing, partly through Honduras, in hope of reaching the United States. US action beyond individual sanctions is needed to quell the crisis there and to provide additional financial and technical assistance to help ease the migration pressures on both Honduras and Costa Rica (which is south of Nicaragua). But providing economic opportunity and greater security in Honduras will also directly alleviate pressure at the US southern border: Last year, more Hondurans arrived there than from any of the three northern Central America countries. Honduras is also a stop along the migrant journey for many Haitians, Cubans, and others.

 
Harris has been designated as Biden’s point person in the region. How can she leverage that role to help tackle the root causes of migration?

This has been a priority for the Biden-Harris administration from the outset—but it’s not a short-term fix. The problems are entrenched in societies like Honduras. But US partnership has the potential to put willing countries on the right track: Harris is using her role to lead a US government-wide strategy to address economic insecurity, corruption, and criminal violence, as well as to advance efforts to improve human rights and gender-based violence. For example, her Call to Action for private-sector investment in the region, announced last May, has yielded $1.2 billion in commitments. What Harris now needs is more willing partners in the region; Castro has the opportunity to be one.
To what extent can any single country (whether Honduras or others) lead the charge in addressing the collective ills of the Northern Triangle?

The challenges of northern Central America cannot be resolved by any one country. Each country has its own history and set of challenges—as well as an opportunity to address them. But while domestic political circumstances require a country-by-country approach, the region does share overarching challenges that require sustained, committed US support and partnership. Seismic political differences in the region mean that leaders rarely come together to talk; investment is also more attractive from a regional vantage point. In the past, the United States has found opportunities to cajole Central American countries to find common ground when otherwise not possible. But that will be an uphill battle: Besides dealing with stubborn autocrats such as El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Washington must also contend with an increasingly assertive China in Central America.

Covid Vaccine Skepticism May Be Fueling ‘Worrisome' Rise in Wider Anti-Vax Sentiment, Doctors Say

By Chloe Taylor, CNBC • Published January 26, 2022

Mike Segar | Reuters
File: Protestors demonstrate against Covid vaccine mandates outside the New York State Capitol in Albany, New York, on January 5, 2022.

In the late 1990s, claims that vaccines caused autism "turned tens of thousands of parents around the world against the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine," according to the Lancet medical journal.
In 2010, the journal retracted a 12-year-old article linking vaccines to autism, and studies have proven vaccines do not cause Autism Spectrum Disorder.
In the U.K. last year, 90.3% of two-year-olds were vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. A year earlier, 90.6% of children of the same age had been given the vaccine.

Skepticism toward Covid-19 vaccines could be fueling a "worrisome" rise in broader anti-vax sentiment, doctors have said.

Professor Liam Smeeth, a physician and director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told CNBC he was concerned that vaccine hesitancy around Covid was "creeping into" sentiment toward other vaccines.

"I'm concerned it's making people think: 'oh, well, maybe the measles vaccine isn't great either, and maybe these other vaccines aren't great,'" Smeeth said in a phone call. "And we don't have to see much of a drop in measles vaccine coverage in the U.K. to get measles outbreaks."

He noted that there had been outbreaks of the disease when vaccination rates dropped in Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s.

In the late 1990s, claims that vaccines caused autism "turned tens of thousands of parents around the world against the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine," according to the Lancet medical journal. In 2010, the journal retracted a 12-year-old article linking vaccines to autism, and studies have proven vaccines do not cause Autism Spectrum Disorder.
'Jar full of wasps'

London-based Smeeth said measles vaccination rates only needed to drop a little below 90% for the disease to become a problem.

Measles is a highly contagious, serious viral illness that can lead to complications such as pneumonia and inflammation of the brain. Before widespread use of the measles vaccine, major epidemics broke out approximately every two to three years and the disease caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year, according to the WHO.

In the U.K. last year, 90.3% of two-year-olds were vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. A year earlier, 90.6% of children of the same age had been given the vaccine.

In the U.S., 90% of children were vaccinated against measles by the age of two in 2019, according to figures from the World Bank, marking a decrease of 2 percentage points from a year earlier. More recent data for the U.S. is not available.

Between 1988 and 1992, that figure fell from 98% to 83% in the U.S., and stayed below 90% for four years. In the U.K., the measles vaccination rate for two-year-olds dipped below 90% in the late 1990s and did not recover until 2011.

"Measles is like a jam jar full of wasps that is raging to get out," Smeeth warned. "The minute vaccine coverage drops, measles will reappear. So that is a worry, that that [Covid anti-vax sentiment] and that dent in confidence is seeping across into other vaccines. That is a real worry."
'Devastating' changes

Gretchen LaSalle, a physician and clinical assistant professor at Washington State University's Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, told CNBC that the politicization of Covid and its vaccines, as well as a lack of understanding of vaccine ingredients and public health, had had "devastating" effects.

In 2020, LaSalle completed the American Academy of Family Physicians Vaccine Science Fellowship. As part of the program, she helped carry out a survey of more than 2,200 people, tracking their attitudes toward immunizations.

Covid vaccines were first administered in December 2020 in the United States.

"In living through the Covid-19 pandemic and seeing the devastating effects on lives and livelihoods with their own eyes, our theory was that people would be reminded of the vital importance of vaccination and that their confidence would increase," LaSalle told CNBC in an email.

But 20% of respondents told LaSalle's team they had become less confident in vaccines during the pandemic.

"This decrease is worrisome," LaSalle said. "For illnesses like measles that require a very high percentage of the population (typically around 95%) to be immune in order to limit the spread, a decrease in vaccination percentages by even 5 to 10% could be devastating.

LaSalle told CNBC there were several factors contributing toward the public's loss of faith in vaccines.

"Even before the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy was increasing, and we were seeing the return of deadly diseases around the world," she said.

"The rise of the internet and social media as outlets where people get their news and information, and the proliferation of misinformation online, has absolutely contributed to the problem."

She added that because people in the developed world rarely witnessed the devastating effects of vaccine-preventable diseases, for some, the threat of the illnesses doesn't seem real — and they now fear the vaccination more than the illness itself.
Breakthrough cases

However, Vivek Cherian, a Chicago-based internal medicine physician, told CNBC he hadn't noticed people's views of non-Covid vaccines changing throughout the pandemic — although he said he could understand why some people's views on vaccines in general may have been "tainted."

"If they got the Covid vaccine and possibly even boosted and still ended up getting a breakthrough infection, their immediate response may be 'what was the point if I ended up with an infection anyways? What's the point of getting other vaccines?'" he said in an email.

"When that has come up, I tell my patients that while they may still have got an infection, it could have been much worse if they [were unvaccinated] — and the data overwhelmingly says that your chance of hospitalization and death are significantly reduced when vaccinated and boosted."

Cherian said it was important to bear in mind that this was not unique to Covid vaccines: no vaccine is 100% effective.

"Just think of the annual influenza vaccine," he said. "I myself a few years ago got the flu shot and still ended up getting the flu, but that has never (nor should it) deterred me from getting influenza shots every year."