In our January 2021 Call for Submissions, we asked for articles in consideration of “Contemporary Humanism’s Biggest Priorities and Challenges for 2021“. In the United States of America (USA), one of the leading humanist organizations, American Humanist Association has left the gates with a clear indication that the identity of leadership within humanist organizations is a leading priority.
Roy Speckhardt announced that he will be leaving his position as American Humanist Association Executive Director by the fall of 2021
Speckhardt, who joined the American Humanist Association (“AHA”) staff 20 years ago and was appointed Executive Director in 2005, says his decision to open his position for a new voice is the right one for the AHA and the humanist movement.
Speckhardt explained that, “Being at the helm of such an organization as the AHA, whose mission is so critical to our times and whose influence far outstrips its size, was the greatest honor of my life, but I’ve decided it’s time for me to step down and make room for new leadership. It is my emphatic hope that my seat is filled with a Black or Brown humanist because our movement has gone too long without such diversity at the helm and this would open the door for the AHA to truly achieve its potential as a humanist and anti-racist institution.”
Speckhardt oversaw the AHA’s exponential growth and evolution from a small organization focused more on the philosophical aspects of humanism to an advocacy powerhouse with significant access in all levels of government. During his tenure, the organization quadrupled its capacity and membership, and its annual reach grew explosively from thousands previously to millions today. He helped move the organization from a modest townhouse to a statement headquarters building in the heart of the nation’s capital, a venue where the founding members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus gathered to determine its mission. Speckhardt saw the organization achieve many firsts, from seeing humanists and other nontheists named in federal legislation, to launching the movement’s first staffed social justice department, to seeing the first time an AHA staff attorney argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I have gratitude for everything our team, members, and supporters invested. It’s because of you that we were able to achieve successes together,” Speckhardt added. Coming to the AHA after serving six years with the Interfaith Alliance and once appointed the AHA’s Executive Director, Speckhardt made hundreds of public appearances, wrote scores of published articles, and authored the AHA’s primer, Creating Change Through Humanism. His next book, Justice Centered Humanism, will be released in April 2021.
Sunil Panikkath, President of the AHA Board of Directors, praised Speckhardt for his many years of service.
“Roy drove the humanist perspective to new heights of awareness, acceptance, and prominence. He traveled the nation meeting with local leaders and other supporters, regularly defended humanist viewpoints in the media, and assembled a team of professionals ready to make a difference in Washington,” said Panikkath.
Panikkath said that a search is underway to find a new Executive Director for the AHA, which will celebrate its 80th anniversary next year. Speckhardt will remain at the AHA through the transition and will continue to be closely involved as chair of a new AHA Board Committee on Advancement.
“With the help of our chosen executive search firm Professionals For Non Profits, who have posted the position, we are getting started on a thorough, nationwide search to find new leadership for the American Humanist Association, a search that will involve all AHA stakeholders,” said Panikkath. “I am confident we will find a new leader who will be well qualified to meet the challenges before us and to take advantage of opportunities for further growth and development of humanism.”
The American Humanist Association (AHA) works to protect the rights of humanists, atheists, and other nontheistic Americans. The AHA advances the ethical and life-affirming worldview of humanism, which—without beliefs in gods or other supernatural forces—encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
In our January 2021 Call for Submissions, we asked for your submissions on topics relating to humanism, including a request for articles on the theme of Humanism’s Biggest Priorities and Challenges for 2021. As a website devoted to providing information about the fundamental links between humanism and human rights & freedoms, we cannot ignore the worst deprivations of human dignity during our aspirations for the highest of human freedoms.
On February 2, 2021 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime released the fifth edition of its Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. The report covers 148 countries and provides an overview of patterns and flows of trafficking in persons at global, regional and national levels, based primarily on trafficking cases detected between 2016 and 2019. As UNODC has been systematically collecting data on trafficking in persons for more than a decade, trend information is presented for a broad range of indicators.
Divided into six sections (Global Overview, Socio-Economic Factors and Risks of the COVID-19 Recession, Children – Easy to Target, Trafficking for Forced Labour, Traffickers use of Internet and Regional Overview) and pushing 200-pages, the report provides a sobering perspective on one of humanity’s oldest and most odious problems.
Traffickers see their victims as commodities without regard for human dignity and rights. They sell fellow human beings for a price that can range from tens of US dollars to tens of thousands, with large criminal organizations making the highest incomes.
The report is produced every two years. The 2020 edition covers data from the world’s largest database on trafficking victims, compiling figures from official sources across 148 countries. It also analyses 489 court cases from 71 different countries, providing qualitative information on the perpetrators and the characteristics of the crimes.
The article below the infographic is a related press release that had been embargoed until February 3, 2021.
Share of children among trafficking victims increases, boys five times; COVID-19 seen worsening overall trend in human trafficking, says UNODC Report
Vienna 2 February 2021 – The number of children among detected trafficking victims has tripled in the past 15 years, while the share of boys has increased five times. Girls are mainly trafficked for sexual exploitation, while boys are used for forced labour, according to the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, launched by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) today.
In 2018 about 50,000 human trafficking victims were detected and reported by 148 countries. However, given the hidden nature of this crime, the actual number of victims trafficked is far higher. The Report shows traffickers particularly target the most vulnerable, such as migrants and people without jobs. The COVID-19-induced recession is likely to expose more people to the risk of trafficking.
“Millions of women, children and men worldwide are out of work, out of school and without social support in the continuing COVID-19 crisis, leaving them at greater risk of human trafficking. We need targeted action to stop criminal traffickers from taking advantage of the pandemic to exploit the vulnerable,” said UNODC Executive Director Ghada.
“The UNODC Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020, coupled with the technical assistance UNODC provides through its global programmes and field network, aims to inform governments’ anti-trafficking responses, end impunity, and support victims as part of integrated efforts to build forward from the pandemic.”
Profile of the Victims
Female victims continue to be the primary targets for trafficking in persons. For every 10 victims detected globally in 2018, about five were adult women and two were young girls. Around 20 per cent of human trafficking victims were adult men and 15 per cent were young boys.
Over the last 15 years, the number of detected victims has increased, while their profile has changed. The share of adult women among the detected victims fell from more than 70 per cent to less than 50 per cent in 2018, while the share of children detected has increased, from around 10 per cent to over 30 per cent. In the same period, the share of adult men has nearly doubled, from around 10 per cent to 20 per cent in 2018.
Overall, 50 per cent of detected victims were trafficked for sexual exploitation, 38 per cent were exploited for forced labour, six per cent were subjected to forced criminal activity, while one per cent were coerced into begging and smaller numbers into forced marriages, organ removal, and other purposes.
Victims’ profiles differ according to the form of exploitation. In 2018, most women and girls detected were trafficked for sexual exploitation, whereas men and boys were mainly trafficked for forced labour.
The share of detected victims trafficked for forced labour has steadily increased for more than a decade. Victims are exploited across a wide range of economic sectors, particularly in those where work is undertaken in isolated circumstances including agriculture, construction, fishing, mining, and domestic work.
Profile of the Offenders
Globally, most persons prosecuted and convicted of trafficking in persons continue to be male, with around 64 and 62 per cent respectively. Offenders can be members of organized crime groups, which traffic the great majority of victims, to individuals operating on their own or in small groups on an opportunistic basis.
Traffickers see their victims as commodities without regard for human dignity and rights. They sell fellow human beings for a price that can range from tens of US dollars to tens of thousands, with large criminal organizations making the highest incomes.
Traffickers have integrated technology into their business model at every stage of the process, from recruiting to exploiting victims. Many children are approached by traffickers on social media and they are an easy target in their search for acceptance, attention, or friendship. UNODC has identified two types of strategies: “hunting” involving a trafficker actively pursuing a victim, typically on social media; and “fishing”, when perpetrators post job advertisements and wait for potential victims to respond. The internet allows traffickers to live stream the exploitation of their victims, which enables the simultaneous abuse of one victim by many consumers around the globe.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
Evolution. It’s only one word, but how many hundreds or thousands of other words, ideas and opinions does that one word conjure up? How many books have been written about evolution since Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859? A comprehensive collection that included all books for, against, explaining, confusing, misrepresenting, re-purposing and otherwise largely or wholly devoted to evolution were included, it would make an astounding and enjoyable library.
Even in the absence of such a devoted library, it is entirely possible for the average enthusiast to delve the shelves of their public library and reach a point when it seems like there isn’t much more to be considered. Perhaps academics, biologists and others of specialist sort may have further footnotes to add, but really – is there anything fresh?
Well, yes there is. In 2020, Gaia Vince published Transcendence: How Humans Evolved Through Fire, Language, Beauty and Time. According to the author’s website, Gaia Vince is an “award-winning science journalist, author, broadcaster and speaker…. particularly interested in how human systems and Earth’s planetary systems interact.” who feels that “this is a unique time in Earth’s history, in which climate change, globalisation, communications technology and increasing human population are changing our world – and us – as never before.”
At about 350 pages, the book incorporates a mix of anecdotes, storytelling, and science journalism that is often but not always effective on the first read. But that may be a characteristic in its favour. Like evolution, the book requires a commitment of time. It isn’t exactly like all the other books on evolution. It needs to be read and considered – and sometimes even re-read.
It’s fresh.
In a unique time in Earth’s history when human population is rapidly changing the world, fresh perspective-taking is needed. We shouldn’t be glazing over our routine understandings of the fundamental processes of life. We need to struggle with them a bit more. We need to deepen and widen our perspectives. That is what it seems that Gaia Vince has tried to do with this book.
The book is worth the time and resources you may spend.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
In this installment of commentary on the current Covid19 pandemic, we will consider our current status in regards to testing, restrictions, vaccination development, and public policies. As usual, in light of our epistemic model, it is always important to remember Rumsfeld’s Rule:
“There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.”[1]
So at this point in the pandemic, we must ask ourselves: what do we know, and what do we know we don’t know about this particular virus?
Controlling the Spread of the Disease:
It is important to understand that there are three ontological states of being when it comes to human infection: asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and symptomatic. We have known for quite some time that many spreaders of the disease have been asymptomatic i.e. those infected but who exhibit no symptoms. Because of various studies carried out by different countries around the world – including Iceland, the UK, and others, we are starting to see a clearer picture on the actual percentage of asymptomatic carriers of the virus.[2] Coming in somewhere between 75% and 86%, we are discovering that one of the central reasons such a virus can spread so quickly is not simply due to its high level of virulence i.e. ability to infect a host, but to the fact that so many people don’t even realize they have it, and therefore, don’t self-isolate.
Dr. Christopher DiCarlo
At this point in the pandemic, we are starting to see some variance in regards to viral mutations throughout the world. The UK has found that several new mutations have arisen, some of which have made the virus more communicable, others making the virus somewhat weaker:
The new strain of coronavirus spreading through Britain has a ‘striking’ amount of mutations, scientists have claimed. Members of the UK’s Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium (COG-UK), who have been investigating the evolved strain, say they have uncovered 17 alterations, which they described as ‘a lot’. Many of the changes have occurred on the virus’s spike protein, which it uses to latch onto human cells and cause illness. Alterations to the spike are significant because most Covid vaccines in the works, including Pfizer/BioNTech’s approved jab, work by targeting this protein.[3]
These mutations have some people worried that the currently developed vaccines will not have any effect on these variants. “But scientists, including England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty, have said there is ‘currently no evidence’ the mutation — which has been spotted in Wales, Scotland, Denmark and Australia — will have any impact on vaccines.”[4] So that is some good news as we face this second and far more devastating wave of infections. But we must also remember, that such a virus will continue to evolve and mutate even after massive vaccinations have been carried out:
…vaccines won’t put an end to the evolution of this coronavirus, as David A. Kennedy and Andrew F. Read of The Pennsylvania State University, specialists in viral resistance to vaccines, wrote in PLoS Biology recently. Instead, they could even drive new evolutionary change. There is always the chance, though small, the authors write, that the virus could evolve resistance to a vaccine, what researchers call “viral escape.” They urge monitoring of vaccine effects and viral response, just in case.[5]
A lot of people don’t realize this, but there will be scientists who will track the mutation rates of Covid-19 for months or even years after global inoculations have taken place. We can be fairly optimistic that with the various vaccines in circulation now, the likelihood for ineffectiveness over time remains fairly low:
There are some reasons to be optimistic that the coronavirus will not become resistant to vaccines. Several years ago, Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Read presented an analysis of the difference between resistance to drugs and vaccines. Neither bacteria nor viruses evolve resistance to vaccines as easily as they do to drugs, they wrote. Smallpox vaccine never lost its effectiveness, nor did the vaccines for measles or polio, despite years of use.[6]
So it looks as though we can rest assured that scientists will not have to continuously battle an ever-changing, shape-shifting, virus in the years to come.
And let’s remember, a global viral pandemic will always follow this exact pattern of reaction: Testing, Isolation, Anti-virals, and Vaccine (or TIAV)
To return to our acronym – TIAV, let’s where we’re at in terms of current information:
Testing: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the possible”
In regards to testing, there have been some developments since my last paper in September but quite frankly, I’m disappointed in the overall failure of testing placement by our local, provincial, and federal governments. Where are the ‘at-home self-tests’ for Covid-19? They exist, but they have not been approved for wide distribution and use. In my last paper, I had discovered that Precision Biomonitoring received approval for their PCR rapid testing units on July 7th. But neither the Provincial nor Federal Governments purchased any such devices. Instead, major Canadian and US companies purchased them which allowed mining, fishing, logging, and even the movie industries to continue with little interruptions. Had our governments purchased such units and hired the right people to put them in key places such as airports, retirement homes, supply chains, private businesses, etc., we could have minimized the effects of the inevitable second wave of infections. Be that as it may, we are still using the same, basic testing facilities that have been in place since March, 2020. The response times are still anywhere from 2-5 days which is helpful but still far too long to have any significant impact on controlling and tracing the spread of the virus.
What I referred to in earlier papers as the ‘Holy Grail’ of tests, may finally be a reality. The FDA just recently announced its Emergency Use Approval for the first fully at-home Covid-19 Test by Ellume.[7] Although not as accurate as the PCR tests, medical authorities believe they will go a long way in allowing people to safely test themselves from the comfort of their own home rather than having to wait in line ups and wait for days for results.
In terms of accuracy,
With all antigen tests, positive results are highly accurate and should be treated as a presumptive positive (meaning, you should act as though you have Covid until another test can verify it). However, there is a higher chance of false negatives, because antigen levels can drop lower than what the tests can detect, according to the FDA. In other words, a negative antigen test result doesn’t rule out a Covid-19 infection. Clinical trials found that Ellume’s home test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in people with Covid symptoms. In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples. That means this test works best with people who have Covid symptoms, because antigen tests return positive test results when a person is most infectious. So, while this test can save you a trip to a clinic and a long wait in line to get antigen tested, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Getting a negative result from an antigen test doesn’t give you the green light to behave as though you’re uninfected. The most reliable way to tell if you have Covid or not is to get a PCR test, which is considered the gold standard.[8]
Whether or not Health Canada will approve this new test is not known at this time. They are currently considering numerous applications for such quick response at-home tests. What we do know is that they have refused approval for similar at-home antigen tests in the past:
Where are Canada’s rapid at-home coronavirus tests? Infectious disease experts have been asking themselves — and public health officials — this for months. “If every Canadian had that in their medicine cabinet, we might be able to test our way out of this,” said Colin Furness, an infection control epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto… …Furness is hopeful for a wider approval. He said at-home tests have the ability to not only assist busy public health agencies but also help keep businesses and schools afloat.[9] “We have to think of it like a screening tool, a magic thermometer,” he said. “It doesn’t provide you a diagnosis but it tells you something’s wrong.”[10]
Other medical experts are collectively shaking their heads at the poor policies in place for the approval and massive distribution of such at-home rapid-testing kits.
Many of these tests have gotten a “bad rap” because they’re considered less sensitive than lab-based tests, said Dr. Prabhat Jha, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, and director of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital…Jha believes there’s too much weight being put on this threshold. He believes an effective home testing strategy is a critical part of Canada’s response to the second wave of the virus.[11]
Based on this information, are we safe to infer that if we had such tests back during the summer, we could have drastically reduced the number of infections that led to the second wave?
“Making them available to nursing home staff, for example, would be worth it. Sure, there’d be some you miss, but you could substantially reduce the number of people who are showing up positive at a nursing home, asymptomatically,” he said. “We don’t have to let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.” [12]
It seems as though we have been waiting a long time for such tests. I never imagined that, during a global pandemic, several vaccinations would be discovered and widely distributed before a single, reliable, rapid-response at-home test could be produced.
Isolation:
At this point in time – mid to late December, 2020 – we find ourselves in Canada faced with a rapidly rising second wave of infections. Many restrictions have been placed across the country. We are seeing a rate of 2400 cases a day in Ontario. This is four times higher than during the first wave in March-April. For various reasons – people ignoring social restrictions, businesses staying open, lax enforcement of Covid-19 regulations, kids returning to school, pandemic fatigue, excitement for a vaccine, etc. – the rate of infections has steadily increased since the end of the summer. Governments are forced to impose tougher restrictions on ‘hot spots’ which, in turn, causes residents of that area to move into less restricted areas to shop, dine, etc., which eventually causes a greater spread of infections turning that area into a ‘hot spot’ and so on, and so on, ad nauseum.
It is discouraging to see how some absolutely ridiculous policies were put in place regarding isolation with Covid-19. From the Ontario Provincial Ministry of Health’s website, the following protocol can be found on the ‘COVID-19 Screening tool for students and children in school and child care’ (Version 3: October 5, 2020): “Household members without symptoms may go to school/child care/work.”[13] Think about this for a second. What’s wrong with this statement? Quite a bit, actually. First of all, it commits the fallacy of ‘begging the question’ by assuming that only those people showing signs of the virus are a threat and need to stay home. However, as we all have known for a very long time, it is those who are asymptomatic who are the greatest spreaders of the virus. In fact, the latest research indicates that those who are asymptomatic far outnumber those who are not by a ratio of up to 3 to 1.[14] Because of this policy, thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting and asymptomatic people – especially elementary school-aged children – will attend school to spread the disease to other unsuspecting children who show no signs of the illness but who will quite likely pass it on to their unsuspecting older siblings, parents, and grandparents. In effect, this policy allows for an extremely effective way of transmitting the virus throughout a given population. Such a policy has allowed very young children to become central vectors in transmitting the disease. It is a self-defeating, ill-conceived policy, and it needs to stop – immediately! I have been trying to relay this to the Minister of Education, Stephen Lecce, and the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, for months; but to no avail.
Any and all such policies which assume – falsely – that checking for Covid symptoms amounts to preventing the spread of the virus, are flawed. So any person who is asymptomatic can leave a household entirely infected with Covid-19 and return to work, or attend school, or go to a daycare. A more comprehensive policy might have included something akin to the following protocol: Whenever any person within a household is positively diagnosed with Covid-19, ALL members of that household should remain isolated. When – AND ONLY WHEN – every person in that household produces a negative test result from a PCR testing site, should they end their isolation. By allowing all non-symptomatic members of an infected household to move throughout the community governments have initiated a policy which has rapidly increased the rate of spread of infection.
What we might want to consider at this point is: Who created this part of the policy for isolation regarding Covid-19? Was it a single person? A committee? How were medical professionals consulted on such a development? Citizens have a right to know; because this small technicality may be largely responsible for the rapid transmission of the virus throughout Ontario.
There are other problems involving isolation – or perhaps, more accurately – non-isolation. ‘Anti-maskers’ are people who believe that wearing a mask while in public places, is unnecessary. They sometimes hold large anti-lockdown freedom marches. Not unlike Trump rallies, such events are both highly politicized and often become super spreader gatherings. Wearing a mask is no longer seen as a public duty i.e. “We’re all in this together”. Instead, wearing a mask is viewed as a symbol of political oppression i.e. “No way, is ‘the man’ or ‘Big Government’ going to tell me what to do!” There are many factions of society – from Mennonite communities, to New Age devotees, to far-right conservatives – who show up for such marches.
It is science which has led the waythroughout this entire pandemic.
There is a general feeling of anti-science in the air. And that is unfortunate; for it is science which has led the way throughout this entire pandemic.[15] From our decades-long predictions and warnings, to pleading for attention that this pandemic was inevitable, to the understanding of its cause, to its genetic identification, vaccination development, etc., science has been at the forefront leading and advising us of the most responsible actions to take. In world-record-breaking time, several vaccinations have been produced to put an end to the virus so the world can return to some form of normalcy. To see such people flout the value of scientific evidence because of their oddly-kept and deeply skewed views of liberty and freedom has such ironic flavour as to go entirely unnoticed beneath their watch. Anti-maskers are wrong. Period. Wear a mask; it’s among the very least you can and hence, should do – for your community, your country, your world. Science proves that masks work; therefore, you listen to science and wear a mask – irrespective of any and all political ideologies.[16]
Anti-Virals:
The biggest news to date with antivirals is that the Latest COVID-19 guidelines have come out against two leading antivirals: bamlanivimab and remdesivir. In a recent paper, it was found that:
…there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The drug should not be considered the standard of care, and hospitalized patients should not receive bamlanivimab outside of a clinical trial, according to the treatment panel. It recommended that clinicians discuss trial participation with patients and prioritize use of the drug in patients with the highest risk of COVID-19 disease progression.[17]
Dexamethasone and convalescent plasma treatments continue to be used successfully in ICU’s throughout the world.
Vaccines:
There has been considerable development of vaccination therapies since Part III of this series. As of mid-December, 2020 the world is now receiving vaccinations from two major companies: Pfizer and Moderna. Both are mRNA vaccines which is a very new form of technology which was developed in accordance to discoveries made by 2020 Nobel Prize Laureates Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna.
That method, formally known as CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing but often called simply CRISPR, allows scientists to precisely cut any strand of DNA they wish. In the 8 years since its creation, CRISPR has been a boon for biologists, who have published thousands of studies showing that the tool can alter DNA in organisms across the tree of life, including butterflies, mushrooms, tomatoes, and even humans.[18]
This same technology has allowed scientists to rapidly develop vaccines against Covid-19. Known as mRNA (or messenger ribonucleic acid):
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the immune cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19. At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19.[19]
Currently, both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are being shipped to enormous freezers which must keep them at very cold temperatures: Pfizer at -75o C and Moderna at – 20o C.[20] This will obviously complicate logistics. But many countries have already established guidelines and supply chain management strategies in an effort to optimize deliveries of the vaccine.
Triage: Who Gets the Vaccine First?
Since this is our first pandemic, determining the triage or order of preference for a medical intervention is a political, legal, and moral determination. In regards to which countries first receive the vaccine, Canada is involved with a coalition known as COVAX:
COVAX is a global initiative led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and international vaccine alliance organization Gavi, that aims to bring governments and vaccine manufacturers together to ensure all countries have access to the COVID-19 vaccine once they become available.[21]
So far, there are approximately 184 countries participating in the COVAX program. But this does not limit wealthier nations (like Canada) from reaching out directly to pharmaceutical companies in procuring vaccines:
Higher-income countries are not limited to resorting to COVAX just because they’ve signed on. Several, like Canada and the European Union, have been dealing directly with pharmaceutical companies to secure vaccine doses. To date, Canada has procured nearly 414 million vaccine doses — more than 10 doses per-person for its population of 37.9 million while the European Union, which is home to almost 448 million people, is also on track to obtain 1.1 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses. In a statement to Global News, the office of the Prime Minister said that Canada had announced $440 million into COVAX — the second largest contribution any country has made so far.[22]
So, as a country, Canada seems well-positioned in receiving various vaccines as they become approved for world-wide distribution. In regards to who, exactly, will be receiving the vaccines as they arrive, we notice that a system of priorities has been put in place. On the Government of Canada’s website, we find the following guidelines:
The objective of this advisory committee statement is to provide preliminary guidance for public health program level decision-making to plan for the efficient, effective, and equitable allocation of a novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine once it is authorized for use in Canada when limited initial vaccine supply will necessitate the prioritization of immunization in some populations earlier than others. These recommendations aim to achieve Canada’s pandemic response goal: “To minimize serious illness and overall deaths while minimizing societal disruption as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Due to anticipated constraints in supply, these National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommendations apply to provincial/territorial publicly-funded immunization programs only and not for individuals wishing to prevent COVID-19 with vaccines not included in such programs.[23]
There are specific key populations that have been identified as priority status. Such key populations include at high risk of severe illness and/or death from COVID-19 includes:
Advanced age, those most likely to transmit COVID-19 to those at high risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 and workers essential to maintaining the COVID-19 response, Healthcare workers, personal care workers, and caregivers providing care in long-term care facilities, or other congregate care facilities for seniors, other workers most essential in managing the COVID-19 response or providing frontline care for COVID-19 patients, household contacts of those at high-risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19, those contributing to the maintenance of other essential services for the functioning of society, those whose living or working conditions put them at elevated risk of infection and where infection could have disproportionate consequences, including Indigenous communities.[24]
The following graph summarizes the National Advisory Committee on Immunization’s (or NACI) interim recommendations on key populations for early COVID-19 immunization for public health program level decision-making:
So the good news is: the end to the pandemic is in sight. The bad news is that by the time vaccinations get into the arms of enough Canadians to reach actual herd immunity (70+%), many will become sick and many more will continue to die. We have learned, recently, that such a tactic of deliberately allowing millions to become infected with the virus to quicken the likelihood of herd immunity was carried out by the Trump Administration:
A top Trump appointee repeatedly urged top health officials to adopt a “herd immunity” approach to Covid-19 and allow millions of Americans to be infected by the virus, according to internal emails obtained by the House Oversight Committee and shared with POLITICO. “There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD,” then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.[25]
At first sight, one might think this might be an effective way to try to battle a virus. However, upon further consideration, it becomes quickly apparent that far more people will fall ill and die as a result. For example, if just 1% of those infected with Covid-19 die, and 300 million Americans contract it in an effort to hasten herd immunity, then that means around 3 million people in the US, alone, will die. Trump’s appointee furthers his illogical suggestion by saying:
“Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…” Alexander added. “[I]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected” in order to get “natural immunity…natural exposure,” Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials.[26]
Here’s where things get interesting and perhaps, a little frightening. If, and I say: IF, Paul Alexander was aware of the projected death rate, and he continued to push for his bizarre idea of bringing about herd immunity, THEN it follows that he was willing to sacrifice a great many lives in order to speed up the movement of the virus through the US population – and the number of lives sacrificed would be well into the millions. What’s more, the suggestion of such an idea makes a great deal of sense now that we recall how states like Florida and Texas simply ignored CDC and WHO guidelines for dealing with the virus and let all businesses stay open and resume as usual. And perhaps this is why Trump was downplaying the use of masks and holding such enormous rallies:
Alexander also argued that colleges should stay open to allow Covid-19 infections to spread, lamenting in a July 27 email to Centers for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield that “we essentially took off the battlefield the most potent weapon we had…younger healthy people, children, teens, young people who we needed to fastly [sic] infect themselves, spread it around, develop immunity, and help stop the spread.”[27]
There is no definitive evidence that Alexander’s suggestions were fashioned into any type of formal policy: “In a statement, a Health and Human Services spokesperson said that Alexander’s demands for herd immunity “absolutely did not” shape department strategy.”[28] Be that as it may, to what extent did such an idea lie in the backs of the minds of those who neglected to act quickly and decisively against the spread of such a deadly virus? Especially when another main chief medical advisor to President Trump, Dr. Scott Atlas, was a major advocate in promoting herd immunity:
During a Fox News appearance on Aug. 3 discussing college reopenings, Atlas echoed an argument often made by Trump that children “have no risk for serious illness” and “they’re not significant spreaders,” adding, “There should never be and there is no goal to stop college students from getting an infection they have no problem with.”[29]
Practically all public health care professionals have argued the opposite and have now recognized the crucial role people who are asymptomatic play in transmitting and spreading the disease:
While researchers are still studying the effects of the virus on children, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics in July found children carry as much or more of the infection in their noses and throats compared to adults, while a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contact tracing study found young people between ages 10 and 19 years old are more likely to spread the coronavirus in households, where other family members may be more susceptible to severe symptoms.[30]
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with ‘yes men’ for his entire Presidency. For those who dare to question, they have been shown the door and ridiculed on Twitter. To know just how bad Dr. Atlas’s advice has been, we need look no further than an endorsement from the President himself:
“Scott is a very famous man who’s also very highly respected,” Trump said on Monday. “He’s working with us and will be working with us on the coronavirus,” Trump said in August. “And he has many great ideas. And he thinks what we’ve done is really good, and now we’ll take it to a new level.”[31]
Notice how Trump refers to Atlas’s apparent ‘fame’ first? Trump has always cared more about vacuous and value-starved credentials like ‘fame’ and ‘ratings’ as sign-posts for excellence in his concept of professionalism rather than virtues like honesty, integrity, earned professional merit, and dependability. For anyone to think that the Trump Presidency’s task force on Covid-19 (led by Vice President Mike Pence) was “really good”, demonstrates a blind obedience to a political power and indicates a person who has surrendered the values of science as being impartial and objective.
Before joining Trump’s Covid-19 ‘Task Force’, Atlas held a position as senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. Atlas himself is not an infectious disease expert but a board-certified diagnostic neuroradiologist and has served as a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 to 2012. His highly-politicized medical advice regarding the pandemic has been met with swift and fierce rebuke from his colleagues at Stanford. In a scathing letter, dozens of Stanford University Medical School’s top faculty denounced their former colleague for promoting what they called “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science”:
“Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy,” according to the letter, signed by Dr. Philip A. Pizzo, former dean of Stanford School of Medicine; Dr. Upi Singh, chief of Stanford’s Division of Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Bonnie Maldonado, professor of epidemiology and population health, and 105 others.[32]
When scientific knowledge loses its objectivity and professionals decide to weaponize such misleading information, people suffer, and people die. And this is exactly what we have been seeing because of extremely poor leadership on the part of Mr. Trump, and unforgiveable behaviour on the part of Dr. Atlas. In my estimation, ‘Dr.’ Atlas should have his medical degree suspended or stripped for spreading such medical misinformation. We shall see if any professional repercussions ensue in the following months.
The importance of why world leaders must be well-informed and guided by professional advisers who provide the most current and accurate scientific information cannot be overstated. To ignore this, is to do so at the peril of many innocent people.
We did not meet the second wave with the same amount of dedication as we did with the first wave. And unfortunately, this is showing in the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths throughout the world. Hopefully, we will be able to flatten the curve on this wave as quickly as possible so we are all in a much better position to reach peak immunization when the vaccine becomes available to us.
NOTE: I am not going to waste any time discussing the anti-vaccination position. The bottom line is this: Anti-vaxxers are wrong. If the Covid-19 vaccination poses no real health threat to you, it automatically becomes your prima facie minimal duty – to yourself, to others, to your country, and to the world, to get it.
Dealing with Anxiety by Battling Misinformation
Emotionally, the pandemic has taken its toll on us. It is difficult to say at this point, how long after the world returns to normal will we need to deal with issues of anxiety and PTSD. As many are facing pandemic fatigue and are simply tired of having their lives affected by such a pathogen, we must remain vigilant in following rigorous protocols of physical distancing, mask-wearing, handwashing, testing, tracking and tracing, and patience in waiting for our turn to get the vaccine. We can best deal with anxiety when we start with solid, reliable, and responsibly-attained information. If anyone reading this series of papers has any questions regarding the scientific soundness of available information, there are plenty of websites available to help:
If you are unable to find answers to your questions regarding reliable information about Covid-19, feel free to reach out to me, personally and I will do my best to comply. I can be reached at: cdicarlo@criticalthinkingsolutions.ca.
Conclusion:
We will get through this. And we will all be the better for it. For it is in such times of crises that we discover the value and the virtue of the human condition. Here’s hoping that my next paper will report incredible progress against this virus not only in Canada, but throughout the rest of the world. And may it also be the last paper I will need to write about Covid-19.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
On December 10, 2020 Humanists International re-launched the Freedom of Thought Report as an updated document. The document has been in continuous development and circulation since 2012 as a monitor of the rights and treatment of humanists, atheists and non-religious people in every country in the world.
The report contains an entry for every country in the world and uses a unique rating system ranging from “Fee and Equal” to”Grave Violations”. Canada’s rating overview states:
“Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy, extending north into the Arctic Ocean, and sharing the world’s longest land border with the United States. Despite what should be strong constitutional protections for freedom of thought and expression, significant religious privileges are in force, both nationally and in several of its ten provinces and three territories.“
Of particular interest to humanistfreedoms.com is the report’s sections covering Quebec’s Bill C-21, education in Canada, and blasphemy & hate speech. Our readers will recall that this site was partially inspired by Dr. Richard Thain’s fight to defend his right to free expression when he attempted to advertise his opposition to the public funding of Catholic school boards in Ontario.
In this year, when speaking publicly about controversial issues has become a notably riskier endeavour, the need to support individuals and organizations who actively defend humanist freedoms has grown enormously.
Consider Humanist International’s Humanists At Risk Action Report 2020, which exposes a lack of separation between state and religion, as well as an array of tactics used against humanists, atheists and non-religious people in Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka to limit their rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly. No other organization may be relied upon to devote a significant portion of its time to defending humanist freedoms.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
In our search for interesting, challenging and critical perspectives on contemporary humanism, we occasionally find articles published in other venues that we think humanistfreedoms.com readers may enjoy. The following article was published on Sixth Tone and is republished with the author’s permission.
‘Jiang Ziya’ and the Unbearable Lightness of Bourgeois Humanism
The real-life Jiang Ziya was a bold strategist who overthrew a tyrant. His cinematic counterpart mostly mopes — and audiences seem to like it that way.
Last month, Beijing Enlight Pictures premiered the second film in its traditional mythology-themed “Investiture of the Gods” cinematic universe: “Jiang Ziya: Legend of Deification.” And following in the footsteps of last year’s box office hit “Ne Zha,” which transformed its source story from a critique of feudalism into a family-friendly tale of childhood rebellion and acceptance, Enlight also gave the eponymous hero of “Jiang Ziya” a modern gloss.
The historical Jiang Ziya was a founding father of the Zhou dynasty (1046 B.C.-256 B.C.). One of the country’s earliest master strategists, he rose up in revolt against the brutal last despot of the Shang dynasty. Of course, these details have long since been overtaken in the popular imagination by more fantastic portrayals, and the Jiang Ziya most Chinese audiences would be familiar with is more mythic than real. In the classic Ming dynasty (1368-1644) novel “The Legend of Deification,” Jiang Ziya is depicted as a disciple of the Taoist deity Yuanshi Tianzun who leads the rebellious Zhou army to victory.
But the cinematic “Jiang Ziya” goes in a different direction, rewriting the military genius as a maudlin intellectual beset by the cliché humanist ethical problem of how to balance the needs of the individual and the people. The whole film is colored by his confusion and disillusionment, a portrait of the revolutionary politician as an emo young man.
As a scholar of cultural studies, I can’t help but be curious if the film’s production team really believes the only way to make an appealing movie these days is to “humanize” any hero — no matter how mythic, epic, or larger-than-life they are — by weighing them down with mundane concerns.
Then again, if the studiously “humanist” tone of the first two films in the “Investiture” universe are any indication, they probably do.
Zhou Xiaohong, a professor of sociology at Nanjing University, once famously observed that China’s emerging middle class puts consumption first and politics last. But while the first bit is likely true, I can’t agree with the second. Since the 1980s, China’s resurgent petit bourgeoisie have broken with the nation’s revolutionary politics in favor of a return to humanism — the centering of individuality and humanity in place of the Marxist focus on social relations. But how exactly is that apolitical? If anything, it’s the essence of bourgeois politics.
Humanism as a winning pop culture product is a relatively recent phenomenon within the People’s Republic of China. Early on, the country’s authorities took it for granted that the political positions of petit bourgeois intellectuals — distinct in this framework from those in the “middle class” — are obviously dubious and not to be trusted. Although technically grouped with the revolutionary masses, they were locked out of power and resided at the bottom of the so-called chain of contempt. In the words of Mao Zedong: “In the deepest reaches of their souls still reigns an empire of petty bourgeois intellectuals.”
As such, petit bourgeois political stances needed periodic testing and “rectification,” and the only depictions of the petty bourgeoisie compatible with socialist literature and art were those of revolutionaries who have resolved the contradictions of their identity in order to affirm their alliance with the proletariat — or the background figures needed to contrast against more heroic workers, peasants, and soldiers.
After the advent of “reform and opening-up” in the early 1980s, however, humanism became a cultural phenomenon. Following the bloody chaos of the Cultural Revolution, a new movement — in which human nature was used as a means of finding closure and rewriting history — gradually formed in Chinese literary and artistic circles, and petit bourgeois culture revived.
That trend continued into the new millennium, as the social status and financial power of China’s petit bourgeoisie grew. Once relegated to the depths of society, today they’ve reclaimed their perch atop China’s chain of contempt, acting as judges of good taste and looking down upon the backward views and lifestyles of rural China.
A promotional image for the film “Jiang Ziya,” featuring Jiang, Ne Zha, and other characters from the “Investiture of the Gods” cinematic universe in their boy band personas. From @电影姜子牙 on Weibo
Pop culture production has shifted in response. During the so-called golden age of Chinese TV from 2005 to 2014, the petit bourgeoisie was the demographic over which all the major TV stations competed. They propelled Dragon TV to the ranks of China’s top stations, and even younger-skewing Hunan Satellite TV has sought to rebrand itself as highbrow in the hopes of courting a more affluent viewership.
The resulting cultural hegemony of humanism carries a whiff of revisionism, however — one that brooks little dissent. In the mid-1980s, scholars sought to place humanism in a broader context, inclusive of concepts like social relations and alienation. Today, such discussions are practically invisible, as humanism has been lifted to the status of universal value or absolute truth, one that automatically takes precedence over historical and national issues.
This shift is reflected throughout popular culture, from films like 2009’s Japanese soldier-centered tale of the Nanjing Massacre “City of Life and Death” to the reemergence of that great chronicler of Chinese petit bourgeoisie, Eileen Chang. Even a recent adaptation of the classic fantasy novel “Journey to the West” took pains to clarify that the white bone spirits’ violence toward humans was actually justified, as they had once been hurt by humans themselves.
Underlying all these works is a fear of collective violence. They emphasize individual freedom above all else and defend the right of their heroes to retreat from political and public life. Put another way, they advocate the right to remain ambivalent: to not commit to a stance or a collective cause. Any arguments calling this logic into question — such as pointing out that the historical Jiang Ziya went to war to overthrow a tyrant — are denounced as “anti-humanistic”.
Idyllic farmsteads, niche subcultures, consumption — these are the cultural fixations of contemporary China’s petit bourgeoisie, and fixtures of the cultural products they withdraw into.
In part, that’s because they give the petit bourgeoisie ample opportunity to showcase their elegant taste and lofty disposition. This summer, for example, petit bourgeois viewers of iQiyi reality show “The Big Band” briefly made the gritty musical act Wu Tiao Ren pop culture icons. A rock-and-roll group, Wu Tiao Ren seem tailor-made to bourgeois affectation: They sing in the dialect of Shanwei City and have the down-to-earth aura of kids from a small town, but their lead singer still finds ways to read Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek in his spare time.
In turn, the band’s petit bourgeois fans use the group to show off their own cultural sophistication by dissecting and discussing their songs on online forums. Or as one commenter put it in a review of their song “The Globe”: “(It) projects magnificent imagery onto such a small scene as a way of seeking meaning in this world. It uses the scene as a means of invoking a state somewhere between transcendence and madness.”
For all their talk of humanism, China’s petit bourgeoisie view the world and examine the human condition from a position they consider superior to most of humanity. In the process, they scour folk tales and songs alike of their revolutionary connotations, replacing what they take out with their own values. The anti-Confucian iconoclast Ne Zha becomes a bratty son, the warlord Jiang Ziya a mopey man of letters, and I can’t help but ask: Just who exactly is being anti-humanistic here?
Translator: Lewis Wright; editors: Wu Haiyun and Kilian O’Donnell.
(Header image: A promotional image for the film“Jiang Ziya.” From Douban)
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
It is difficult to know for certain whether letters to our politicians and government officials will have an effect. Do you expect that a letter to your city or town Councillor be read and taken seriously? How about your Member of Provincial Parliament? Federal MP? Every bureaucratic layer, every mile from home can seem to shrink the probabilities.
What about writing a letter to dignitaries from foreign countries? Do you think you would be heard? But if the subject were important enough to you, would you still do it?
We imagine that these are some of the questions that ran through Dr. Richard Thain’s mind some weeks ago as he composed and sent a letter (an abridged version provided below) to members of the Algerian government. In his letter, Thain called for the release of Yacine Mebarki, a vocal member that country’s Berber minority who has been involved in the long-running Hirak protest movement. Mebarki had been imprisoned for “profaning Islam” (blasphemy, by a slightly different turn of phrase), encouraging a Muslim to leave the religion as well as several other charges.
Dear Ambassador Meghar,
My name is Richard Thain. As a Canadian citizen, I have the power and the freedom to publicly communicate my perspectives, whether on political, religious or other public matters. I decide who I wish to engage in civil and civic dialog.
On those grounds, I intend to respectfully express my deep concern over the Algerian Court’s decision to find Yacine Mebarki guilty and sentence him to ten years of imprisonment. This decision is the latest of an extremely disturbing pattern in Algeria which is being covered in the international news media. The jailing of journalist Khaled Drareni provides another outrageous example. The world has learned, from Algeria’s National Committee for the Release of Detainees that over five dozen people have been incarcerated in your country, for merely holding unpopular opinions. Journalism is not a crime.
I respectfully direct your attention to the press release, issued on Thursday, September 8, by the Algerian League for the Defence of the Human Rights which “underlines the guarantees in the national law, notably the Constitution and the international conventions ratified by Algeria, in particular the respect for freedom of conscience and opinion.”
I urge you to inform President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, Prime-Minister Abdelaziz Djerad and Minister of Justice Belkacem Zeghmati that many Canadians are appalled by events in Algeria. I urge you to advise the Government of Algeria to immediately release Yacine Mebarki and all prisoners of conscience in Algeria!
Ambassador, there is no-one better positioned or informed than you to recognize that it is of the utmost importance and in the best interests of the Government of Algeria and the Citizens of Algeria that these unconscionable matters be corrected. Help your government to bring the Citizens of Algeria and the Citizens of Canada together by ensuring shared individual freedoms, rights and powers. It is within your power to decide to act or not to act in the interests of Algerians.
Thank you for your time and prompt attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely yours,
Dr Richard G L Thain
You may read a version of Thain’s letter on EAP (en francais). It is our understanding that Thain has not yet received a reply to his letter. But that doesn’t mean that the Algerian government and courts have ignore Mebarki’s case.
We may also imagine the tremendous satisfaction and enthusiasm that Dr. Thain may have felt to read today, as reported on France24, that Algeria’s ” court reduced Mebarki’s prison term from 10 years to one after upholding convictions including “offending the precepts of (Islam)”, but overturning others with heavier sentences including “profaning the Koran”.
Whether Dr. Thain’s letter reached eyes of influential officials in Algeria or not should not reduce any satisfaction Dr. Thain may feel either for his correspondence or for the news for Mebarki. When it comes to the freedom of expression, it is not merely holding the value that is important, it is utilizing that freedom to express one’s opinion even in situations where one has every reason to expect not to be heard.
Dr. Thain encountered his own concerns with freedom of expression, government officials and religious privilege in 2014 when he attempted to publish advertisements objecting to the public funding of Catholic Schools systems in Canada during the launch of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.
While it may be difficult to know whether our dignified and civilized protestations will be heard, that does not diminish our need to make them.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
PPE. Personal Protective Equipment. Such a cold and distant term, isn’t it? Due to the current social and regulatory environment stimulated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, this clinical term is rapidly becoming part of routine conversation in non-clinical settings. Are the service providers in your community (retail clerks, travel-industry personnel, bank tellers, automotive mechanics) wearing their PPE? Are you wearing yours?
A rallying-cry for 2020/2021 may well turn out to be something like Mask-Up-For-Health! However, with all of this masking that has been going-on, it may be argued that some essential components of human interaction are being lost. It is comforting to observe that some folks in the healthcare field have begun to consider and act on this possibility.
A team at Stanford Medicine and partnered with The Arnold P. Gold Foundation and Occidental College have asked: How can we foster humanism in medicine, when the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required and providers don masks, glasses and gowns to protect their eyes, noses, and mouths from COVID-19?
Now there is an excellent and necessary question.
Lead: Cati Brown-Johnson, PhD
Team: Mary Beth Heffernan, Paige Parsons, Juliana Baratta, Alexis Amano, Mae Verano, Cynthia Perez
The team states that, “We believe PPE Portraits may support patient care and health, and even healthcare team function and provider wellness.
PPE Portraits are one possible solution: disposable provider portrait picture stickers (4×5) affixed to PPE where patients can see them. Our brief pilot showed signs of interest and adoption: a participating physician requested PPE Portraits at their clinic and masked medical assistant team-members required PPE Portraits to wear over scrubs.“
How does it work? The Stanford Medicine team is taking a position that it is not unlike how a placebo works, ” we know that provider warmth and competence are positively associated with health at the biological level. Personal protective equipment (PPE) signals competence; portraits could be one of the only signals of warmth for patients who have, or may have, COVID-19. PPE Portraits are disposable portrait picture stickers (4×5 inches) put on PPE that can help patients and providers form a personal connection to positively impact patient health.“
In a Smithsonian article, the project is described as “a way to reintroduce the aesthetic of kindness into patient care“. Fostering humanism is fostering an aesthetic of kindness. No surprise to the humanistfreedoms.com team!
The concept has been with Heffernan since at least 2014, based on an article on hyperallergic.com. Journalist Laura C. Mallonee quoted Heffernan as saying about an ebola epidemic in the news at the time, “Wouldn’t they be less frightening if the person on the inside was pictured on the outside?”
A humanist approach could make a pandemic less frightening? No surprise to the humanistfreedoms.com team! Good ideas deserve to be shared.
Photo Courtesy of SmithosianMag.com (reference below)
If you are affiliated-with or aware-of an institution whose clientele may benefit by a PPE portraits launch or by participating in ongoing research, you may wish to consider contacting Cati Brown-Johnson or Mary Beth Heffernan.
If you found this article interesting, you may also wish to see these earlier articles:
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
HumanistFreedoms.com is thrilled to celebrate the recent announcement that one of our favourite poets and humanists, Henry Beissel, is a winner of the 2020 Ottawa Book Awards.
Henry Beisselis a poet, playwright, fiction writer, translator and editor. He has published 44 books published including 22 collections of poetry. He lives in Ottawa with his wife Arlette Francière, the literary translator and artist. While copies of the critically acclaimed Cantos North(1980 & 2017) and a poet-autographed copy of Fugitive Horizons (2013) adorn our shelves, it was Beissel’s Footprints of Dark Energy (2019) which caught the eye of the Ottawa Book Awards jury (Paul Carlucci, Lyse Champagne, Amatoritsero Ede).
Jury Statement for Footprints of Dark Energy: Part Idyll, part love song and mostly about man in nature, Henry Beissel’s Footprints of Dark Energy approaches the sublime in its epic treatment of its subjects. The meditative undertones of the shorter poems coalesce into the epigrammatic wit of the long title poem, and all are bolstered by the narration’s majestic sweep.
The title poem of this collection takes us on an epic journey across past and present historical events and through spaces defined by the natural sciences, as it explores the challenges of being human in these troubled times. It is accompanied by a gathering of shorter poems that confront the dark forces in our world as they struggle for the light at the end of the tunnel. In stark imagery, these poems turn words into music to celebrate the anguish and the glory of being alive.
Courtesy of Youtube and the ongoing COVID-19 social environment, you can enjoy a highly personal, yet socially distanced, reading by the poet himself:
Since 1985, the Ottawa Book Awards have recognized the top English and French books published in the previous year. Both languages have categories for fiction and non-fiction. All shortlisted finalists receive $1,000 and each winner receives a prize of $7,500.
Winners of the 2020 Ottawa Book Awards were announced during a virtual ceremony on Wednesday, October 21, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. To watch a recording of the event, please visit:
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
You may recall Ray Argyle from his July 2020 article here on humanistfreedoms.com. If you’re as crazy for the history of humanism and secularism as we are, you’ve been anticipating the release of his biography of George Jacob Holyoake for months. Well the pre-order opportunity is here!
What follows is the press-release information shared with us…and now with you.
Secularism, the world’s most widely applied model for the separation of church and state, has freed peoples and their governments from control by religious authority. At a time when it is being challenged by evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam, Inventing Secularism, the first modern biography of secularism’s founder, George Jacob Holyoake, is scheduled for the Spring 2021 list of McFarland & Co.
Ray Argyle, Canadian biographer of French president Charles de Gaulle and American ragtime composer Scott Joplin, writes that George Holyoake “changed the life experience of millions around the world by founding secularism on the idea that the duties of a life lived on earth should rank above preparation for an imagined life after death.”
Jailed for atheism and disowned by his family, Holyoake came out of an English prison at the age of 25 determined to bring an end to religion’s control over daily life. He became a radical editor and in 1851 invented the word secularism to represent a system of government free of religious domination. Inventing Secularism reveals details of Holyoake’s conflict-filled life in which he campaigned for public education, freedom of the press, women’s rights, universal suffrage, and the cooperative movement. He was hailed on his death in 1906 for having won “the freedoms we take for granted today.”
More than 160 secular and humanist organizations around the world today advocate principles set out by George Holyoake in his newspaper The Reasoner and in hundreds of lectures as well as books and pamphlets.
Argyle’s Inventing Secularism warns that a rise in religious extremism and populist authoritarianism has put secularism under siege in countries ranging from the United States to such once staunchly secular nations as Hungary, Poland, Turkey and India. He writes that Holyoake “looked beyond his own time, confident of a future of moral as well as material good, offering an infinite diversity of intellect with equality among humanity.”
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, is located in Jefferson, North Carolina, and is one of the leading publishers of academic and scholarly nonfiction in the United States, offering about 6000 titles in print.
The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
:focal(373x167:374x168)/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/6f/ab/6fab9422-3d12-45b0-b9e2-38bc667561a5/ppeportrait1.jpg)
Humanist Heritage Canada 