Search

Begin New Search Topic Pandemic Political Geography North America

81. Supporting Students to be Independent Learners: State and District Actions for the Pandemic Era

Author:
Education and Society Program
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
In May 2020, the Aspen Institute Education & Society Program shared ten recommended state actions for Fostering Connectedness in the Pandemic Era that were developed with a diverse group of education leaders. The pandemic and resulting closure of school buildings have revealed the deep inequities that already existed in many schools, and connectedness is one of those gaps. Data from school climate surveys demonstrates that students of color, English-learners, and students from low-income families do not feel safe at school, in part because they do not have the kind of caring, trusted relationships that create belonging – and in part because they do not feel challenged with meaningful, rigorous work. With this in mind, and as a complement to the initial recommendations to advance social, emotional, and academic development, we turned to another diverse set of leaders for actionable insights focused on culturally and linguistically responsive education.
Topic:
Development, Education, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

82. How Governors and Mayors Can Support Schools So Schools Can Support Students

Author:
Education and Society Program
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
Schools are getting plenty of advice regarding reopening. What schools aren’t getting is enough material support to meet the needs of students and families. There is a growing recognition that reopening schools is vital for students’ well-being and academic learning, as well as parents’ well-being and their ability to resume anything approaching normal work routines. Whatever the mode of instruction next year — in-person, online, a hybrid approach — school systems urgently need more support to access the resources their students and families need so educators can do their essential work. As the needs of children and families continue to grow and compound — through the pandemic, the economic upheaval, and the racism and racial reckoning gripping the country — addressing health and well-being are essential foundations for learning.
Topic:
Development, Education, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

83. Equity and Affordability in Rural Communities and Tribal Nations

Author:
Energy and Environment Program
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
The annual Aspen-Nicholas Water Forum, a collaborative initiative between the Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program and the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, serves as a platform for addressing domestic water challenges in the 21st century. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Forum took place across a series of virtual sessions exploring what constitutes good water governance through the lenses of water affordability and equity. While this topic was chosen prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, the pandemic has further revealed and exacerbated health and financial disparities across racial, gender, and geographic lines.
Topic:
Inequality, Rural, Public Health, Pandemic, Community, COVID-19, Tribes, and Equity
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

84. Stress Test: People, Technology, and the Safety Net In Response To Covid-19

Author:
Justin King and Financial Security Program
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
COVID-19 jolted the American economy — and it caused at least 30 million Americans to lose their jobs or have their working hours curtailed by April. The speed and volume of those suddenly un- and under-employed has been unprecedented, and it has resulted in a remarkable amount of stress on the nation’s social safety net. SNAP and other safety net supports administered by state governments struggle to meet the needs of millions of people. Some state online applications systems are so poorly designed that applicants remain stuck trying to access support weeks and months after beginning the application process. What can state human service administrators and policymakers do to build accessible intake and application systems? How should we re-design the safety net? Read the brief to better understand how to create a safety net that is people-centered, tech-enabled, and aligned with private benefit systems.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Welfare, Public Health, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Safety Net
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

85. Global Health Security and Pandemics: Joe Biden and COVID-19

Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
In this episode, Professor Sophie Harman discusses President-elect Joe Biden’s proposed plans to deal with the Coronavirus pandemic on both a domestic and international scale. She examines what Biden’s plans entail and what challenges may lie ahead in his pandemic response.
Topic:
Security, Leadership, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

86. Global Health Security and Pandemics: Donald Trump's response to COVID-19

Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
n this video, Professor Sophie Harman (Queen Mary University of London) and Professor Sara E. Davies (Griffith University) discuss Donald Trump's response to the Coronavirus pandemic. They note that, whilst Trump has been criticised for his actions with regard to the USA's initial response, this has not differed vastly from that of other countries, such as Indonesia and Brazil.
Topic:
Security, Leadership, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

87. CoronaShock and Socialism

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
In late December 2019, the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in central China’s Hubei Province detected cases of pneumonia of an unknown cause. In the first few days of January 2020, Chinese authorities were regularly informing the World Health Organisation (WHO) as well as other major countries and regions with close ties to China’s mainland, such as Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan about the outbreak. On 5 January, the WHO released its first briefing on a ‘pneumonia of unknown cause’ in Wuhan. Little was known about the virus, neither how to properly understand it nor whether transmission could occur between humans. The genome sequence for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was published by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) on 12 January. Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a leading Chinese pulmonologist who is advising the Chinese government on this pandemic, confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January. As soon as it was clear that this virus could be transmitted between humans, the Chinese authorities acted. Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was shut down, the scientific establishment in China – and its collaborators around the world – went to work to understand the virus and the disease (COVID-19), and medical personnel in China rushed to be trained and to help break the chain of the infection. Inside Wuhan, the neighbourhood committees, which include members of a range of other associations, Communist Party cadres, and volunteers of all kinds, hastened to assist with temperature checks, food and medicine distribution, and assistance in hospitals. After ten weeks in lockdown, Wuhan opened once more on 8 April. On 15 May, the authorities started to test all the residents of Wuhan once again in order to protect public health and to resume social and economic activities (China shared the results of this test to aid with studies on the feasibility of the herd immunity theory). On 30 January, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). From its Geneva headquarters, the WHO sent up a flare which effectively read: a highly contagious virus has been detected that requires stringent measures of tests, physical distance, and aggressive sanitation. At this point, in the aftermath of 20 January, a gulf opened between the capitalist states and the socialist states. Our analysis shows four main areas of differentiation between the socialist and capitalist approach to the virus. The socialist approach is based on: Science-based government action Public sector production of essential materials Public action mobilised to facilitate social life Internationalism In the capitalist states (such as the United States, Brazil, and India), the governments have instead operated in a hallucinatory manner, pretending that the virus is either not real or not contagious and hoping that some extraneous factor would protect their citizens from its dangers. For-profit sector firms have failed to provide the necessary equipment, while public action has been hard to galvanise in atomised societies that lack the habit of organisation and struggle. Finally, to cover up their incompetence, the ruling political class in these states has resorted to stigmatisation and jingoism, using – in this case – the lethal combination of racism and anti-communism to blame China. In this report, we look at three countries (Cuba, Venezuela, and Vietnam) as well as one state (Kerala, India) to investigate how these socialist parts of the world have been able to handle the virus more effectively.
Topic:
Governance, Capitalism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Socialism
Political Geography:
India, Asia, Brazil, Vietnam, South America, Cuba, Caribbean, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

88. CoronaShock and the Hybrid War Against Venezuela

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
Swiftly moves the Coronavirus and COVID-19, dashing across continents, skipping over oceans, terrifying populations in every country. The numbers of those infected continue to rise, as do the numbers of those who have died. Hands are being washed, tests are being done, physical distance is being observed. It is unclear how devastating this pandemic will be or how long it will last. On 23 March, twelve days after the World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic, the UN Secretary General António Guterres said, ‘The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war. That is why today I am calling for an immediate global ceasefire in all corners of the world. It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives’. Secretary General Guterres talked about silencing the guns, stopping the artillery, and ending the airstrikes. He did not refer to a specific conflict, leaving his plea to hang heavily in the air. After six weeks of deliberation and delay caused by Washington, in the first week of May, the United States government blocked a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution that called for a global ceasefire. The United States blocked this resolution, but even this resolution did not turn its attention to the kind of war that the US is prosecuting against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela – among others. Instead, it has imposed a hybrid war. The US military complex has advanced its hybrid war programme, which includes a range of techniques to undermine governments and political projects. These techniques include the mobilisation of US power over international institutions (such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the SWIFT wire service) in order to prevent governments from managing basic economic activity; the use of US diplomatic power to isolate governments; the use of sanctions methods to prevent private companies from doing business with certain governments; the use of information warfare to render governments and political forces to be criminals or terrorists; and so on. This powerful complex of instruments is able – in the plain light of day – to destabilise governments and to justify regime change (for more on this, see the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research dossier no. 17, Venezuela and Hybrid Wars in Latin America). During a pandemic, one would expect that all countries would collaborate in every way to mitigate the spread of the virus and its impact on human society. One would expect that a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude would provide the opportunity to end all inhumane economic sanctions and political blockades against certain countries. On 24 March, the day after UN Secretary General Guterres’s plea, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet agreed that ‘at this crucial time, both for global public health reasons, and to support the rights and lives of millions of people in these countries, sectoral sanctions should be eased or suspended. In a context of [a] global pandemic, impeding medical efforts in one country heightens the risk for all of us’. A few days later, Hilal Elver, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that she was gratified to hear both Guterres and Bachelet call for an end to the sanctions regime. The problem, she indicated, lies with Washington: ‘The US, under the current administration, is very keen to continue the sanctions. Fortunately, some other countries are not. For instance, the European Union and many of the European countries are responding positively and easing sanctions during this time of the coronavirus. They are not completely lifting sanctions but interrupting them, and there are some communications going on, but not in the US, unfortunately’. On 6 May, three other UN Special Rapporteurs – Olivier De Schutter (on extreme poverty and human rights), Léo Heller (on human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation), and Koumbou Boly Barry (on the right to education) – said that ‘in light of the coronavirus pandemic, the United States should immediately lift blanket sanctions, which are having a severe impact on the human rights of the Venezuelan people’. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has brushed aside all concern and continued with its agenda of hybrid war towards regime change.
Topic:
Conflict, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
South America, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

89. Latin America Under CoronaShock: Social Crisis, Neoliberal Failure, and the People’s Alternatives

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
The emergence of COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean has accelerated – sometimes dramatically – a series of economic and social processes that had long been underway and revealed the result of decades of neoliberal policies. The increasingly authoritarian policies, precariousness of labour, and the current social crisis are among the consequences of the neoliberal model, which puts capital before people.
Topic:
Labor Issues, Neoliberalism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:
South America, Latin America, and North America

90. Putin and Global Health: Friend or Foe?

Author:
J. Stephen Morrison and Judyth L. Twigg
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Over the course of this decade, Russia has consciously enlarged its engagement and commitments, at home and in the wider world, in battling both tuberculosis (TB) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Despite these positive steps, Russia remains a serious global health security threat. There is a live risk of uncontrolled HIV/AIDS and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) epidemics within Russia itself, as well as ongoing risk of export to neighbors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, whose deep interdependence with Russia, including extensive migrant traffic, creates acute vulnerabilities. Beyond Eurasia, Russia stands out as one of several flashpoints in the world that could contribute to a resurgent HIV/AIDS and DR-TB epidemic that reverses the global gains of the past 15 years. Russia’s social media practices deliberately spread confusion and distrust surrounding a wide range of preventive health measures, ranging from vaccines to harm reduction. This analysis weighs Russia’s positive contributions against its multiple destructive actions in global health, examines what the overall pattern of Russian behavior means for U.S. policy, and concludes with a proposal for an expanded U.S. health security alliance with Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It argues that the United States should welcome Russian contributions and collaborate with serious Russian partners in the service of broader shared health goals. At the end of the day, however, Russia will only earn a legitimate global health leadership seat through progressive, evidence-based policies and actions, which can never be wholly segregated from the noise created by its geopolitically destabilizing actions.
Topic:
Health, International Cooperation, Public Health, and Pandemic
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America