Pfizer CEO: “booster” likely needed 12 months after vaccination – National & International News – FRI 16Apr2021

Pfizer CEO: “booster” likely needed 12 months after vaccination. Chauvin won’t take stand in Floyd trial. Denmark turns back on Syrian refugees.

NATIONAL NEWS

Pfizer CEO: “booster” likely needed 12 months after vaccination

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla says that recipients of his firm’s COVID vaccine will probably need a third shot within 12 months of full vaccination. He also says that some individuals may need yearly vaccines to maintain their immunity.

Currently, no one knows how any of the available COVID vaccines will perform beyond 6 months. A recent report from Pfizer shows that after 6 months, their jab is 91% effective in protecting against infection and 95% effective in preventing severe infections. How much protection Pfizer and the other vaccines perform beyond that point will have to await more data.

Bourla says, “A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed”. He added that emerging variants of the virus will play a “key role”.

Bourla also defended his firm’s pricing regime for their vaccine. Pfizer’s vaccine is currently the most expensive on the market. Recent data suggests the prices in the US and EU are hovering around $20 each. Compare this to the AstraZeneca jab, which sells for the equivalent of less than $3 in the EU. Bourla did not confirm exact prices, but admitted vaccines were sold at a higher price in developed countries. “In middle-income countries, we sell it for half the price,” Bourla said. “In poorer countries, including in Africa, we sell it at cost”.

Click here for the full story (opens in new tab).

Chauvin won’t take stand in Floyd trial

Many following the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd have wondered if they would ever hear from Chauvin himself. Chauvin and his attorney’s confirmed in court yesterday that Chauvin will not take the stand in his own defense. Chauvin and his attorney Eric Nelson said there were intense discussions between the two of them of the pros and cons of Chauvin addressing the court. They finally decided it was best to leave the burden of proof to the state in terms of Chauvin’s state of mind as he knelt on Floyd’s neck for nearly 10 minutes.

Pros and cons of testifying

Several legal experts have evaluated the pros and cons that likely influenced Nelson and Chauvin’s decision. On the pro side, Chauvin’s intent and state of mind during the incident are a crucial component of his defense. This is something only Chauvin himself can really shed light on. Chauvin’s stone-faced countenance in the video as Floyd slowly expired beneath him reveals little. It reveals no fear of the crowd around him, which defense witnesses have cited as an explanation for Chauvin’s failure to monitor Floyd’s condition. Nor does it reveal any concern for the well-being of the suspect he has pinned to the ground. The fact that Chauvin’s face mask hides his facial expressions from jurors during the trial doesn’t help matters. By appearing empathetic or remorseful, Chauvin might have helped his case.

On the con side, Chauvin could hurt his case by appearing defiant or unmoved by his contribution (whatever it was) to Floyd’s death. Defense attorneys are generally reluctant to have their clients take the stand in murder cases if they don’t believe they’ll come across as likeable to the jury. Taking the stand would also expose Chauvin to an aggressive cross-examination from the prosecution. For instance, prosecutors could play the video for Chauvin, pausing every few seconds to ask Chauvin to explain his thinking at each stage of the encounter.

Click here for the full story (opens in new tab).

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

Denmark turns its back on Syrian refugees

Since last summer, Denmark as stripped 189 Syrian refugees of temporary residence status in the country, arguing that “parts” of Syria are safe to return to. About 500 more refugees from Damascus and surrounding areas are also awaiting re-evaluation of their asylum claims.

The decision has shocked and dismayed both refugees and their advocates. Many have been in the country for 7 years, and have come to look upon Denmark as their new home. Young refugees, many of whom arrived as young children, have pursued educations and careers, speak fluent Danish. Since most of their family members are also in Denmark, they have little left to return to in Syria. If returned, young men will also have to face conscription into Assad’s army.

Psychological war

Asmaa al-Natoor, who has been in Denmark for 7 years, compared the Danish government’s decision to Assad’s regime. “[Assad] kills us with missiles directly. But the Danish government is waging a psychological war”. Ms. al-Natoor spoke of elderly refugees who have suffered heart attacks and strokes after learning they had lost residency status.

Many of the refugees affected by the decision would face imprisonment if they returned, due to their previous opposition to the Assad regime. Others risk persecution from IS due to their Christian faith. One letter from the Danish government in response to such concerns read, “It is only your own presumption that you risk abduction on a return to Syria”. 

Though it has deemed Damascus “safe”, Denmark cannot return refugees to Syria by force. But you wouldn’t know that from reading another letter from the government to refugees, which reads: “If you do not travel out of Denmark voluntarily, you can be sent to Syria”. The government is offering thousands of euros for “voluntary” returns. The alternative is to remain in the country illegally and live in fear of being caught, or to remain in a legal limbo in one of the country’s refugee camps.

Click here for the full story (opens in new tab).