Latest news with #GeorgetownUniversity
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
‘I think people severely underestimate India': US founder praises India's booming startup scene
A US businesswoman and author Codie Sanchez has shared a post praising India, saying that it is "severely underestimated " as a business powerhouse. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Codie added that she is planning a trip to India. Codie tweeted, "I'm planning an Indian tour... I think people severely underestimate India as a business powerhouse. 1) Past = It's only call centres. Now = millions speak fluent English. 2) Past: IT back office for the world. Now = tons of engineers with complex skills. 3. Past: Copycat Indian startups. Now = Billion-dollar native creative startups." Codie concluded her note, "Functioning democracy. Rule of law. Intellectual property rights. Entrepreneurial attitude. All ingredients for the next startup innovation hub." The Entrepreneur on a journey page asked, "This tour, will it be in India, or in the north Dallas suburbs?" She replied, "lol real ones know." A woman wrote, "I'd love to join & my family would be happy to host you with factory tours in Morbi, Gujarat, massive export town. India is amazing. Despite its reputation, it is truly the future in terms of business." Codie responded, "Thank you I have never been to those parts of India!" A tweet read, "Definitely visit factories in India. The startup world will be easily accessible, but get into as many factories as possible." A person wrote, "Totally agree! India's transformation is incredible. From innovation hubs to startup unicorns, the potential is massive. Excited for your tour—bet you'll find it eye-opening!" "As someone from India, I feel this shift every day. It's not just talent, but it's hunger, creativity, and a new wave of builders who aren't just following trends, but setting them. The world's watching now," wrote another person. An X user said, "It's crazy how fast things have changed, India's emerging as a major global business force." A comment read, "Good luck with the tour. You will experience many different versions of India. So let's see what you come back with." A person said, "India is going to become the new China for the USA. We move a lot over to them. They copy and replicate. Their economy will grow. Millions will come out of poverty. Hopefully, this time, we do it smartly so we don't build up our next strategic competitor. Maybe that's inevitable." Currently based in Texas, Codie studied at Arizona State University and then did her MBA from Georgetown University. She has worked for several companies such as Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, State Street and First Trust, among others. She is the founder of Contrarian Thinking. Codie also has her own podcast channel, Big Deal.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Interview: India's options are limited but military strikes are ‘symbolic', won't deter terror
Military strikes will not deter Pakistan from using terrorism as a tool of foreign policy since Kashmir and the conflict with India are existential to the Pakistani army, said Christine Fair. 'The purpose of this was more illustrative than it was deterrence,' Fair told Scroll in an interview. India's options remain extremely limited, said Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown University who is considered an expert on the Pakistan army and the country's terrorist network. Terror groups, like the Lashkar e Taiba, are domestically crucial to Pakistan while Islamabad's use of nuclear threats in negotiating with the West will ensure its continued survival, said Fair. 'The only thing that really changes Pakistan is a decisive military defeat of the Pakistan army that leaves the Pakistan army in complete disarray,' she said. 'This is not something that India can do right now or for the policy-relevant future. It's not possible at all now [given the nuclear umbrella].' Referring to the military strikes, she said they generated a lot of jingoism in India and were risky but didn't change anything on the ground. 'They're really important symbolic attacks – but they're symbolic attacks. They don't degrade the ability of these organisations to operate.' Fair also pointed out that the off-ramp in this case was manufactured, like it was during the 2019 military strikes in Balakot after the Pulwama terror attack. In both instances, she said, the Indian and the Pakistani publics were left with this 'enormous sense of victory'. The Indian media's 'bakwas', or nonsense, said Fair, also made it difficult to evaluate the implications for foreign policy. Edited excerpts: Play Do you think Pakistan will be deterred by what just happened? No, not at all. The Pakistan army is an insurgent army – it can't defeat India conventionally. And for that matter, India can't defeat Pakistan in a short war because the forces along the IB [international border] and the LOC [Line of Control], are similarly poised. India's advantage can only kick in during a long war and that's increasingly difficult because of nuclear weapons and so forth. So India can't defeat Pakistan, Pakistan can't defeat India. But Pakistan views Kashmir as part of this incomplete process of Partition and that Pakistan itself is not complete without Kashmir. This is a story that all Pakistanis learn. It gives rise to every army chief. There was a lot of hay made about [General Asim] Munir's speech about Kashmir being the jugular vein of Pakistan. The fact is every army chief says this and every prime minister says this. The Pakistan army can't take Kashmir. But what the Pakistan army can do is deny India the victory of saying that Kashmir is calm and a peaceful part of India. I also wanted to dispel any criticism that has been leveraged against the Indian state saying this is an intelligence lapse. I was in Kashmir two years ago [and] the counter insurgency grid is very robust. But the fact is you can't stop every attack. It's just not possible. So, Pakistan has to do this to show that India hasn't compelled or deterred it. What this means is that we're going to see a return to normalcy – just as we did after Pulwama. But mark my words, there's going to be another terrorist attack. It'll likely be in Kashmir. I don't think anything has happened here strategically that is going to deter Pakistan from using terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. But does it increase its cost? In Balakot in 2019 and again this time, we're seeing credible sources that Pakistani air bases have been hit. So does increasing that cost at least impose a further barrier on Pakistan exporting terror to India? The short answer is no and the evidence really shows this, right? Pulwama was pretty costly, but let's look at the lessons that came out of Pulwama. This is important because it involves the duplicity of Indian and Pakistani media. What the Pakistanis, credibly, can say is that they shot down a MiG and they returned its pilot and they were accoladed for doing what a country is supposed to do. What allowed India to back down was this complete fabrication of an F-16 shootdown. There was no F-16 shot down. I say this with 100% confidence. This entire off ramp was manufactured, right? Let's take a look at the off ramp here. It is from the Indian public and from the Pakistani public. The Indian public believes if I listen to [Republic TV anchor] Arnab Goswami, apparently Pakistan took Karachi port. The Indians have these fictive beliefs about these capacious gains that were made vice Pakistan. Pakistan, for its part, believes that it shot down five Indian aircraft. Now, there is evidence that it shot down two, but we don't know about the other three. The Indian and the Pakistani publics are both left with this enormous sense of victory. It's going to take a really long time to do satellite imagery analysis. India made very capacious claims about damage that was made to Balakot. It turned out to be absolute nonsense. But it took a couple of weeks for those claims to be interrogated through satellite imagery analysis. By the time that the actual truth comes out, the media has moved on to something else. In any event, neither the Pakistani or Indian media are interested in what actually happened – because that's just not the way they're operating. Both of the publics have been misinformed, which allows them to have very different beliefs about the costs and the benefits that have been. So what can India do now? India really pulled out all its stops in some way. What do you think that India could do now to credibly deter the Pakistan army from misadventure. The only thing that really changes Pakistan is a decisive military defeat of the Pakistan army that leaves the Pakistan army in complete disarray. That happened in 1971. And yet, within a matter of years, we had Zia ul Haq and we know about the terror story under Zia's tenure. That's the best example we have. But there was a period of relative peace between '71 and '77 or so. So the only way to really deter Pakistan is to decisively defeat and dismember and dismantle the Pakistan army and thoroughly vilify it in the eyes of the Pakistanis. This is not something that India can do right now or for the policy-relevant future. It's not possible at all now [given the nuclear umbrella]. At a strategic level, it's very unfortunate for India. The only way forward, is the path that won't be taken, which is the international community has to resolve that the Pakistani state as it is currently constituted is a menace not only to India but to the international order. What what we've seen instead is that Pakistan gets away with this every single time. It was never on the blacklist FATF [Financial Action Task Force] because that would have deprived it of IMF [International Monetary Fund] funds – and no one wants to deprive Pakistan of IMF funds because it's too dangerous to fail. So absent a consolidated and concerted effort by the international community to reorder the way Pakistan does business, this is going to continue. I have a lot of empathy for the paucity of options that India possesses. As this conflict was going on Pakistan received a $1billion loan from the IMF. Even in a post-Afghanistan situation, we are seeing a Pakistan which does have support from the West and is best friends with China. Practically, will the West ever completely turn away from Pakistan and want to dismember it or completely change the way the state is currently? It's never going to happen. And it's never going to happen because Pakistan uses its nuclear weapons to blackmail the West that we're too dangerous to fail. In the old days we had a parking meter: you put a quarter in it, you got 15 minutes. With Pakistan, you put a quarter in it and you got two minutes – but it was a reliable two minutes. People are afraid that if you change the policy with respect to Pakistan, you'll put that quarter in and you'll get negative 15 minutes. People feel confident that they can manage Pakistan – sort of like mowing the lawn. But in this belief that it has somehow managed Pakistan and managed the conflict that it generates, it actually enables the very same conflict that is so dangerous. What has this conflict meant for Munir. The Pakistan Army's popularity has been declining over the last few years. Does this reverse that decline? It's really fascinating because the Pakistan Army hates me and its enthusiasts have hated me. There have been several occasions over the past year… I was at an airport with a former army officer of all people… So I've had a number of people reach out to me and say, '...I used to hate you because of your views about the Pakistan army, but now I love you because you were right.' This was an actual quote from a former army officer at the Dubai airport. And I was absolutely gobsmacked. So I said, 'It's because of Imran Khan, isn't it? You're an Imran Khan supporter.' And he said, 'Yes'. Imran Khan has put a huge wedge between the Pakistan army and the Pakistan people. And Munir has been suffering tremendously. Imran Khan really was the first prime minister – whether you love him or you hate him – to aim his sights at the Pakistan army, which is why he is in jail. You don't do that and get get away with it. We saw remarkable scenes – people overrunning Pakistani cantonments. The Lahore core commander's house. Just things that you don't see. Domestically, not just Munir, but the Pakistan army is really on its heels. The other issue that doesn't come up, of course, is Balochistan terrorism. In the same way that Indians believe there's a Pakistani hand behind every explosion in Kashmir, the Pakistanis believe there's an Indian hand behind every explosion in Balochistan. There was just a very horrific terrorist attack on a train in Balochistan. In terms of the timing, what explains what's going on with Pahalgam is threefold. There had been normalcy, for the most part, in the Valley. Tourism was returning. Kashmiris were making money off of the increased tourism. You have the declining popularity of Munir specifically, but the army more generally, and then you have this pretty severe spike in terrorism in Balochistan. Those three factors account for why Pahalgam and why now. When there's a war, there's a sense of national unity, especially behind the army. Will this end up badly impacting the PTI [Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf]? This is going to give the army a very temporary respite from the criticism. There's always been discussion about corruption within the army. But for the first time you have the 'core' commanders being called the 'crore' commanders. There's a much more systemic rot in the Pakistan army. The Pakistanis themselves are attuned to. This is going to provide some temporary respite, but it's not going to provide a permanent solution to the gap that has emerged between army supporters and PTI supporters. Can you describe for us how this terror network works? Right now is the Lashkar-e-Taiba as strong as it was 10 years back or has there been a decline in how Pakistan looks at and supports these terror groups? I would say just the opposite. Everyone knows about the LET conducting operations on behalf of the army. But what very few Indians are aware of is the domestic utility of the LET within Pakistan itself. The Lashkar-e-Taiba opposes all of the violence that's taking place within Pakistan, not just obviously the Baloch violence, but also the Islamist violence. They take aim at those that engage in takfir [excommunication]. They take aim at those that are trying to destabilise the government. Lashkar-e-Taiba has this really important domestic function as well as an external function. It is a militant opponent of the Islamic state. The LET is much more important in this post 9/11 world than it was before. You called the Pakistan army an insurgent organisation rather than one that behaves like a conventional army. It's very difficult to defeat an insurgent. Take a look at the Taliban. Look at how many hundreds of thousands of forces, during the height of the surge, and we still couldn't defeat the Taliban. But how does an insurgent organisation prove that it hasn't been defeated? It just has to conduct one attack. It's very easy for the Pakistan army to show that it hasn't been defeated by conducting attacks in Kashmir. More structurally, the Indians are at a huge disadvantage. If the Indians want normalcy – or the semblance of normalcy – which is usually measured by terrorist attacks to return to the valley, they have to have an increasingly impressive counter-insurgency regime, which causes a lot of resentment in the Valley, which furthers the goal of of making Kashmiris feel that they're part of the Indian project. The Pakistanis win this game because it's not a game that's hard for the Pakistanis to win. But on the other hand, it's a very difficult game for the Indians to win. What is the end game for Pakistan and its army here? It keeps exporting terror to Kashmir? Pakistan itself becomes poorer and poorer. Where does this go and end? The Pakistan army only thinks of its own corporate interests. Having an aggressive India that the Pakistan army can credibly say menaces Pakistan, burnishes the Pakistan army's credentials – it allows it to have this huge conventional footing. If there were to be peace with India, the Pakistan army, as it exists today, could not exist. There's no rationale for its existence. For the Pakistan army to have the size that it has, to have its outsized role in politics – it has a hegemon that claims the state's resources – it needs a strong India that looks menacing. I think it might be difficult for Indians to understand that all of this just benefits the Pakistan army. It's almost as if conflict is existential to the Pakistan army. People say if there were peace, there would be a better economy – and this is of course true. But the Pakistan army puts its existential needs above material gains. We've seen that happen in '71 where the Pakistan army was ready to have Pakistan divided rather than lose power. Correct. How popular is support for these terror groups domestically in the public in Pakistan? Your average Pakistani doesn't view these groups as terrorist groups for one thing. They view these groups as fighting a good fight in Kashmir, helping to liberate their Kashmiri brethren from an oppressive Indian state. If people are familiar with the group, they don't view them as terrorists. The other thing that Lashkar e Taiba does [is] it has a bunch of front organisations that do things like health and social service outreach. For example, in Sindh, the state has completely neglected to provide water to the residents. It's also an area that has a lot of Hindu residents. The Lashkar e Taiba provides water services and actually through those service provisions, they've also converted several Hindus to their creed, which is really amazing. Through these health and services outreach, coupled with those who know what they do in Kashmir not being viewed as terrorists, the support is reasonably high. I did a survey of Pakistan. It's very, very out of date – I think it was done in 2013. Obviously, support for the Lashkar-e-Taiba is highest amongst the Punjabis [of Pakistan's province] and it is lowest amongst the Baloch – because Lashkar-e-Taiba is also used as a bulwark against Baloch terrorism and against Baloch nationalism. There are 10 districts in Punjab [province] that account for about 90% of LET recruitment. It's very similar to the Pakistan Army actually. There's an overlap. And the reason for that is they need people with similar skill sets. A lot of what India did in this conflict is to target Punjab, which is such a stark diversion from Indian policy earlier. Do you think that will have an impact on Pakistani army morale? I support the attacks. I'm not criticising India for the attacks. I want to be very very clear. But I also want to be very clear that it was very very risky. And the fact is none of those targets are going to strategically degrade the ability of Jaish-e-Mohammed or Lashkar-e-Taiba to operate. That's a fact. So, it was a lot of risk for not a lot of gain. And by the way, that's why it assured that there would be a strong Pakistani response because when the Indians struck, they didn't go into Pakistani airspace. Within Indian airspace, they used standoff missiles to attack Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That was pretty provocative, right? We saw the escalation at Balakot pretty quickly. So, obviously the Pakistanis were going to respond robustly to an attack upon the Punjab. But what I wish people would reflect upon – how do I put this nicely? This burnished the credentials of the chappan-inch sinawala [the one with the 56-in chest]. It generated a lot of jingoism in India. It had a lot of risk, but it didn't change anything on the ground. The purpose of this was more illustrative than it was deterrence. I think they were much more political in calculation than they were aimed at degrading the organisations. They're really important symbolic attacks – but they're symbolic attacks. They don't degrade the ability of these organisations to operate. Where does the US-Pakistan relationship stand now post the Afghanistan withdrawal? During the Afghan war, we were really dependent upon Pakistan because of the ground lines of communication. All the war material, most of it flew through Pakistan's airspace or was transported on the ground through Pakistan's ground lines of communication. So we needed them and we were much more willing to put up with their nonsense. But after the withdrawal, the essential concerns about Pakistan's failure remain in place. You still have the constituent of people saying that we should be engaging the Pakistanis, we shouldn't be isolating them. This conflict is going to burnish the credentials of those people who are arguing for engagement. Paul Kapoor has been tapped to be the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and it's very unfortunate that he had not been confirmed prior to this crisis. He will be very welcomed in India. He will not be welcomed in Pakistan. It is going to limit our ability to engage Pakistan. We'll just have to see what happens after we have an assistant secretary of state in place. How do you evaluate India's foreign policy performance during this conflict? It's hard to evaluate because the Indian media was just a sea of bakwas [nonsense, rubbish]. And I have to say, after the whole Balakot affair and the manufactured F-16 shootdown, I no longer take Indian announcements as being credible. India lost a lot of credibility for me in the Balakot affair. Because of the media? Because the media was so bad, but also the Indian government directly participated in this fabrication of an F-16 shootdown. So, it's not just the media, it was the Indian government, and specifically the Modi government. I can't just take Indian pronouncements at face value, but what I can see is that the proof is in the pudding. You had a bunch of people engaging on both sides. We encouraged both sides to engage peacefully to resolve their outstanding issues peacefully. But India sees that as a defeat, right? For India that's a defeat. For Pakistan it's a victory. Because it's an acknowledgement that Pakistan's equities are valid. But for India it's a defeat. I can't evaluate the rigorous efforts that were made, but what I can see is that in the outcome of those efforts, India did not secure unequivocal support from international capitals. [Donald] Trump's tweet is something that in India we're looking at with a lot of disfavour. Let's be really clear, right? Trump and JD Vance are not reliable narrators. I actually don't know the extent to which to trust their pronouncements. The Indians have pretty much rubbished a lot of what Trump has said. I don't know the truth because my media is also unable to get to the bottom of things. But today's tweet is a really good example of what I would say is a failure of Indian foreign policy. Because if India had successfully persuaded the United States of its position, we would not have seen such an obtuse statement coming from the President of the United States.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Want a COVID vaccine? It could cost you $200.
Most Americans have decided they're done getting vaccinated against COVID-19, but there are still reasons to consider it, and it remains an essential protection for some. That's why some doctors and medical organizations are concerned about changes to the vaccine recommendations made by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Under the changes Kennedy announced in a social media post on May 27, in addition to those announced a week prior by his appointees, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. These changes, which bypassed the normal scientific review process, may make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including healthcare workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. Kennedy specifically changed the recommendations so pregnant women and healthy children aren't included, though it's not clear if that's just for booster shots or whether it would also include a baby's first COVID-19 vaccine. Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot ‒ which runs about $200 ‒ if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations. Kennedy did not explain a reasoning behind the change, though he has complained in the past about the quality of studies used to justify previous recommendations. Recent statement: RFK Jr.: 'I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me' Limiting access in this way, several medical experts said, contradicts Kennedy's previous statements about how he'd handle vaccines. It also runs counter to the general practice of medicine, which supports people making medical decisions in collaboration with their doctor, they said. "I think we can treat people respectfully and show them the information and let them make their own decisions," said Dr. Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at Georgetown University. He and others said they're especially concerned that these policy changes are happening without supporting data or the typical scientific review by two panels of experts. "We haven't been presented with one shred of information to show that this step is needed at this time," Goodman said. "If it is, fine, but present that publicly, use the advisory committees and let's have a transparent process." The federal government has stopped tracking COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths, but local data shows they are still happening in every age group, with two-thirds of hospitalizations in people 65 years and older. Meanwhile, safety data on the vaccines continues to show that serious side effects are extremely rare, leading many specialists and expert organizations to conclude that it's still worthwhile to get the vaccine. While the vaccine is most important for people in vulnerable groups, such as those over 65 and people with health conditions, a booster remains useful for everyone, even children, several experts and disease organizations told USA TODAY. "What is clear is that pregnant women, infants and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. Healthy kids will no longer be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines, according to Kennedy's policy announcement. Fewer than 5% of children received the COVID-19 vaccine between the fall of 2023 and the fall of 2024, data shows. Yet COVID-19 continues to lead to about as many hospitalizations in children as the flu, at about 100 hospitalizations for every 100,000 kids under 4. On balance, the vaccine still provides a benefit, said Dr. Melissa Stockwell, division chief of child and adolescent health at Columbia University. "The point of a booster is to give protection against whatever the current circulating variant is and shorter-term protection against infection, but what we're really looking for is protection against severe outcomes," Stockwell said. The COVID-19 vaccine has repeatedly been found to be safe in children, though vaccines like medications can always have some rare risks. Most notably with the original COVID-19 vaccine schedule, adolescent boys and young men were at somewhat higher risk for a rare heart problem known as myocarditis that is also a risk of COVID infection itself. Stockwell said she and others haven't seen myocarditis since the early days of vaccination when the initial two doses were given relatively close together. What remains unclear ‒ and of much higher concern to pediatricians and infectious disease experts ‒ is whether Kennedy's new policy covers all shots or just boosters. Children between 6 months and 2 years are at high risk for severe COVID-19 because they've not been exposed to it before, just as everyone was at higher risk when the virus was new. And vaccination reduces the risk for long COVID, in which symptoms can linger for months or even years after a COVID-19 infection. Stockwell, who said her own children are vaccinated, cited research showing that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID in children by 40%. A new study in JAMA Pediatrics shows that children younger than two who had been infected with COVID were more likely to experience trouble sleeping, fussiness, poor appetite, a stuffy nose and cough, while preschoolers, aged 3 to 5, who had been infected were more likely to have low energy, daytime tiredness and a dry cough than children who avoided infection. The study found that roughly 1 in 7 previously infected children meet the criteria for long COVID. "For parents who want their children to be vaccinated, we want them to have that opportunity," Stockwell said. The new policy removes the recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. This concerns a number of obstetricians, infectious disease specialists and pediatricians. Pregnant women are at high risk for severe disease and studies show that the likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth and pregnancy complications like preeclampsia, blood clots, heart and kidney damage and hypertension are much higher among women who develop COVID-19 during pregnancy. Newborns are also at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Any respiratory infection is more dangerous in newborns than in others, because their airways are so small. Plus, they have never been exposed to COVID-19 before. Vaccinating during pregnancy protects newborns until they are old enough to get their own shot, Stockwell said. The COVID-19 vaccine has also been shown to be extremely safe during pregnancy and far safer than a COVID-19 infection. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, which has expertise in high-risk pregnancy, issued a statement saying the society "strongly reaffirms its recommendation that pregnant patients receive the COVID-19 vaccine." The COVID-19 vaccine, the society said, "is safe to be given at any point during pregnancy. Maternal immunization is also associated with improved infant outcomes and decreased complications, including maternal and infant hospitalizations. " Changes to the vaccine schedule are typically made after federal officials solicit recommendations from two panels of experts in infectious disease, pediatrics and other relevant specialties. The heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration then review the decisions of their respective panels and issue a joint recommendation. Kennedy's decision breaks with this practice. "It can be confusing to families, particularly when there's conflicting information about vaccination," Stockwell said. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also raised concerns about Kennedy's disregard for the normal procedure of changing vaccine recommendations. In his brief comments on social media on May 27, he didn't mention consulting any doctors or panels. "This decision bypasses a long-established, evidence-based process used to ensure vaccine safety and ignores the expertise of independent medical experts, including members of CDC committees who are examining the evidence regarding the vaccine to make recommendations for the fall," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. "By removing the recommendation, the decision could strip families of choice. Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage remain unclear," he said. In the wake of Kennedy's statement, the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) urged insurers to continue to cover the COVID-19 vaccine for everyone, including the groups Kennedy said the government would no longer recommend get the shot. "IDSA strongly urges insurers to maintain coverage for COVID-19 vaccines so that all Americans can make the best decisions to protect themselves and their families against severe illness, hospitalization and death," society president Dr. Tina Tan said in a statement. "IDSA also urges Congress to conduct meaningful and necessary oversight to ensure appropriate decision-making processes at the Department of Health and Human Services, which will impact people of all ages." Months ago, in the lead up to his confirmation, Kennedy told at least one senator that he would follow CDC guidance and the advisory committees' recommendations about vaccines. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and physician, said Kennedy assured him he would adhere to expert guidance on vaccinations. He spoke from the floor of the Senate in support of Kennedy, explaining to his colleagues that Kennedy "has also committed that he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems." "If confirmed," Cassidy told them, "he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes." Contributed: Adrianna Rodriguez This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump admin's COVID vaccine rollbacks could mean high cost, less access
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- General
- Al Jazeera
Chinese students in US grapple with uncertainty over Trump's visa policies
Washington, DC – For Anson, hearing the news that Chinese student visas were the latest target of US President Donald Trump's administration was 'heartbreaking'. The Chinese graduate student, who is studying foreign service at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that he feels uncertain about the future of students like himself after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the US would begin to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. 'There is definitely a degree of uncertainty and anxiety observed amongst us,' Anson said, asking that only his first name be used. The Trump administration has offered little further clarity on which students would be affected, with some observers seeing the two-sentence announcement, which also vowed to 'revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny' for future visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, as intentionally vague. While 23-year-old Anson said he understood the US government had concerns about foreign influence and national security when it came to China, he was confused as to why the Trump administration's new policy was potentially so wide reaching. Most students from his homeland, he said, were just like the other more than one million students who study every year in the US, a country that is known both for its educational opportunities and for its 'inclusivity and broad demographics'. 'It is heartbreaking for many of us to see a country built by immigrants becoming more xenophobic and hostile to the rest of the world,' he said, adding that he and other Chinese students in the US were still trying to decipher the policy shift. It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at Chinese students, with the US Department of Justice in 2018, during Trump's first term, launching the so-called 'China Initiative' with the stated aim of combatting 'trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage'. An MIT analysis instead showed the programme focused predominantly on researchers and academics of Chinese descent, in what critics said amounted to 'racial profiling and fear mongering'. It was discontinued in February 2022 by the administration of former US President Joe Biden. Since then, there has only been 'greater and greater suspicion in the US, almost on a bipartisan basis, of various aspects of Chinese technology, actions by Beijing around the world, and now these concerns about surveillance and spying within the US', according to Kyle Chan, a researcher on China at Princeton University. That included a Republican-led congressional report in September 2024 that claimed hundreds of millions of US tax dollars – funneled through US-China partnerships at universities – helped Beijing develop critical technologies, including those related to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and nuclear capabilities. But Chan, while acknowledging 'genuine security concerns' exist, said the broad announcement from the Trump administration did not appear to actually address those concerns. Instead, it has sent 'shock waves of fear throughout university campuses across the country', he said. That uncertainty has been compounded by Trump's recent pressure campaigns on US universities, which most recently involved a since-blocked revocation of Harvard University's ability to enrol international students. 'I think the vagueness is part of the [Trump administration's] strategy, because it is not about a concrete policy,' Chan told Al Jazeera. 'I don't think it's really, at the end of the day, about national security and trying to find the few individuals who may pose a genuine risk.' Instead, he saw the move as aimed at Trump's political audience, those sitting at an 'overlap between people who are very anxious about immigrants in general, and people who are very anxious about China'. The administration has offered little clarity on the scope of the visa revocations, or how it will define students with 'connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce gave few further specifics, saying only that the department 'will continue to use every tool in our tool chest to make sure that we know who it is who wants to come into this country and if they should be allowed to come in'. 'The United States, I further can say here, will not tolerate the CCP's exploitation of US universities or theft of US research, intellectual property or technologies to grow its military power, conduct intelligence collection or repress voices of opposition,' she said. Despite the dearth of clarity, the eventual shape of the policy will determine just how 'disruptive' it could be, according to Cole McFaul, a research analyst at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University. He pointed to 'real concerns about research security and about illicit IP [intellectual property] transfer' when it comes to Beijing, noting there have been a handful of documented cases of such activity in recent years. 'My hope is that this is a targeted action based on evidence and an accurate assessment of risk that takes into account the costs and the benefits,' McFaul said. 'My worry is that this will lead to broad-based, large-scale revocations of visas for Chinese students operating in STEM subjects,' he said, referencing the abbreviation for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. McFaul noted that about 80 percent of the estimated 277,000 Chinese students who study in the US annually are in STEM subjects, in what he described as 'an enormously important talent pipeline from China to the United States for the past 40 years'. A vast majority of Chinese PhDs in STEM subjects – also about 80 percent – tend to stay in the US after their studies, in what McFaul described as another major benefit to the US. 'The question is, what counts as someone who's working in a critical technology? Are life sciences critical? I would say 'yes'. Are the physical sciences critical? I'd say 'yes'. Is computer science critical? Is engineering critical?' McFaul said. 'So there's a world where the vast majority of Chinese students are disallowed from studying in the United States, which would be an enormous loss and tremendous disruption for the United States science and technology ecosystem,' he said. As the policy remains foggy, Chinese students in the US said they are monitoring the often fickle winds of the Trump administration. Su, a 23-year-old applied analytics graduate student at Columbia University, said she swiftly changed her plans to travel home to China this summer amid the uncertainty. 'I was afraid if I go back to China, I won't be able to come back to the US for when classes begin,' said Su, who asked to only use her last name given the 'sensitive' situation. 'When Trump announces something, we never know if it's going to be effective or not,' she told Al Jazeera. 'It's always changing'. Deng, a graduate student at Georgetown who also asked that his full name not be used, said he broadly agreed that reforms were needed to address issues related to Chinese influence in US academia. Those included intimidation of political dissidents, the spread of nationalist propaganda, and 'oligarchy corruption', he said. But, in an email to Al Jazeera, he said the administration's approach was misguided. 'The current measures not only do not achieve such goals,' he said, 'but [are] also generating unnecessary fear even among the Chinese student communities that have long been fully committed to the development and enrichment of US society.'
Qatar Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Qatar Tribune
Georgetown DC students boost Arabic skills, cultural knowledge with debate workshops in Doha
Tribune News Network Doha A group of Arabic heritage learners from Georgetown University's Washington, DC, campus recently completed an immersive academic and cultural visit to Georgetown University in Qatar (GU-Q), culminating in their participation in a university-level Arabic debate competition hosted by Qatar University. The week-long exchange, aligned with Georgetown's commitment to multilingual and cross-cultural learning, offered the visiting students a chance to deepen their Arabic fluency while engaging with regional peers on critical issues. As part of their preparation, the team took part in five days of intensive debate workshops at GU-Q led by Dr. Seerwan Hariry, assistant teaching professor of Arabic. The sessions focused on the fundamentals of Arabic debating, including mock debates on timely topics such as environmental taxes and university admissions policies. Through these simulations, students practiced speaking formally in Arabic and refined their critical thinking skills. For Shady Makhlouf, an International Politics major (SFS 2025) studying in the United States, the trip was an incredible learning experience. 'The National debate competition we took part in was very special, as we combined teams from both campuses to form four teams. Although our campuses are thousands of miles apart, it felt as though we were competing as one university,' he said. His classmate Adelina Stulen (GU-Q'26), added: 'I could never imagine myself competing in Arabic debates, so it was certainly a new and challenging experience - but the energy and support of our Georgetown team made that day exciting for me!' Beyond the classroom, students had a chance to see how Arabic is used across Qatar.'We explored some of Qatar's most iconic institutions — from Al Jazeera to the Qatar National Museum, Qatar University, Qatar National Library, QF Headquarters, and many other places,' explained Dr. Hariry. One of the highlights was an exclusive tour of the Al Jazeera Media Network headquarters in Doha, where students observed live news production in both English and Arabic. The behind-the-scenes experience made a lasting impression on the students, who regularly practice their Arabic by watching excerpts from the media network, among other Liu, (SFS '28), who is studying Comparative Regional Studies in DC shared:'Seeing the actual set and the place that produces the Arabic media I use to learn was a great experience.' For Yinzhe Liu (SFS '28), the experience exposed her to a new career possibility in news: 'Witnessing live newsroom interaction and backstage operations taught me a lot,' she said. According to Dr. Hariry, the exchange and site visits helped students move beyond the classroom and into real-world application of the Arabic language, while engaging with fellow enthusiasts across continents. 'The students were delighted to host their DC peers and support a growing culture of collaboration between campuses,' he said. Shady agreed, saying 'The students we met were so kind and welcoming. I made new friends and reconnected with old friends that had visited the DC campus on past exchanges.' Although the Georgetown team did not place in the final rounds of the debate tournament, the experience of competing in Arabic against native speakers left a lasting impact. Students returned home with improved fluency, stronger debate skills, and greater cultural confidence—an experience that will continue to shape their academic and professional goals. The initiative underscores Georgetown's dedication to fostering intercultural dialogue and providing platforms for global learning across its campuses. As GU-Q celebrates its 20th anniversary, programs like this highlight the university's vision for producing ethically grounded, globally minded graduates.
