Arquivo para October, 2020
Happiness from beatitude, purity and love
All contemporary argument about happiness when it does not go down to the bottom of barbarism, is to link it to consumption, material goods and pleasure.
That is why beatitude has distanced itself from happiness, although in the western roots of classical antiquity (Eudaimonia) it is common, in “Ethics to Nicomachus” Aristoteles establishes: “As for his name, the majority is practically in agreement: happiness calls him, both like educated people, assuming that being happy consists of living well and being successful ”, but clarifies in another point that it is not wealth:“ Life (…) dedicated to trade is against nature, and it is evident that wealth is not the good we seek; in fact, it exists only for profit and is a means to something else ”, but at this point it will say that it is pleasure.
The question arises as to what is the end of this search, whether it is success, honor, recognition, in the end what we perceive is that “If, in fact, the good were one and predicable in general, and subsisted separately, it is evident that it would not be achievable or achievable by man; but that is precisely what we seek ”, what is this end.
In any eschatology we perish and if death is only a tragic and final end, it would be good to make the most of this life and even values such as honor and success would be worthless, only if these resulted in the end of “pleasure”, and not it is then humility, compassion and participating in the happiness of others are beatitudes that also result in our own happiness.
Thus, those who seek only their own happiness in no way favor their own since they have no occasion to share and selfish pleasure is only partial happiness. hedonists try to deny it, but those who really experience it guarantee that there is a balanced and always present happiness, joy and peace for those who practice it.
The Sermon on the Mount is a classic for those who believe and may well serve as a meditation for those who seek effective and full happiness:
the poor in spirit
those who cry
the humble ones
those who are hungry and thirsty for justice
the merciful the pure in heart
the peacemakers
those persecuted for the sake of justice
For these will be comforted, they will receive the land as an inheritance, they will be fed up with the justice that will finally be achieved, they will have mercy and will be called “children of God”, for those who believe in the greatest beatitude, it was the central and eschatological truth announced for all the humanity.
History will either go there or we will have a crisis process much bigger than the current pandemic, than the horrific cycles of war, and not be happy.
Affliction and anguish
Those who have read The Being and Time attentively know that one of Heidegger’s important responses is what should be read in Kierkgaard were quick to witness the celebrated response of a thinker considered to be one of the most eminent philosophers of contemporary times.
It is, therefore, Heidegger himself who Kierkegaard separating him into so-called “edifying” teachings that would be more important than “theoretical” ones, except in one case that is anguish, in his treatise The concept of anguish, and that the “the forest philosopher” is keen to say that “from an ontological point of view” it remains “entirely tributary to Hegel and ancient philosophy seen through him”. (HEIDEGGER, 2012, p. 651, n. 6).
What Heidegger saw in this 1844 book, whose authorship is attributed to Vigilius Haufniensis, a Kierkegaardian pseudonym that translates as “Copenhagen Watcher”, since Kierkegaard was Danish and his first intention is to return Socratic wisdom, which for him contemplative knowledge (theory) with practical knowledge (phrónesis), the way of ancient Greek.
Although he called Socrates a “practical philosopher, he just wanted to focus the“ anguish ”dressing on the experience of what was reflected by the soul and this meant an approximation of psychology, it was“ the doctrine of the subjective spirit ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 25), was one of the branches of Philosophy, and of a really dialectical philosophy in the Greek-Socratic sense since modern philosophy has fixed itself on the Kantian dualism thesis versus antithesis with an improbable synthesis.
The philosopher uses the expression “hereditary sin”, used by the author throughout the work, but as the one that corresponds to what theologians, called by him “dogmatic”, call the original sin, nomenclature apart, is the aspect that brings his theme closer to the anguish of that “soul” affliction, which can have a philosophical and psychological outline, but which is basically that affliction of those who feel outside a center, from a clear perspective of overcoming anguish.
What leads existence to a singular way, to a way of acting in such a way? This is where the notions of freedom and anguish emerge as “concepts” converge to this “anguish”, but without having a locus, neither in Aesthetics, in Metaphysics or even in Psychology, so the author does not say so, but there is something afflicted and tragic in this journey in this “anguish”.
Paul Ricoeur, reflecting on these expressions of Kierkegaard, establishes that evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason, recalls Ricoeur (1996, p. 16), referring to the Kierkegaardian reflections, evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason.
Ricoeur thus differentiates structural evil (we have already made a post), linked to anguish and sin and free will linked to personal decisions in the face of anguish.
The point that I consider essential in Kierkegaard’s thought on this existential aspect is that “only what has crossed the anguish of possibility, only this one is fully trained not to be distressed, not because it evades the horrors of life, but because they always become weak compared to those of possibility ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 165-166), it is here that affliction can find its opposite and we can understand that there is a source of comfort in it.
Thus anguish and affliction are not exactly curses or sinful states or diseases of the “soul” or thoughts, they are phases of rupture or transition to other more mature phases when this stage involves reflection and overcoming.
HEIDEGGER, Martin (1957) Ser e tempo. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2012. (Multilíngues de Filosofia Unicamp). JOLIVET, Régis. As doutrinas existencialistas: de Kierkegaard a Sartre. Portugal, Porto: Tavares Martins.
KIERKEGAARD, Sören (2010). O conceito de angústia: uma simples reflexão psicológico-demonstrativa direcionada ao problema dogmático do pecado hereditário de Vigilius Haufniensis. Tradução e notas Álvaro Luiz Montenegro Valls. 2. ed. Brazil, Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Happiness in Thomas Aquinas
To analyze beatitude, which we have already explained that is also an ancient Greek theme for happiness, Thomas Aquinas learned from the Greek philosopher to distinguish between two different forms of happiness: the natural riches that are those by which man is helped to compensate for natural deficiencies such as food, drink, clothing, housing, etc., and artificial ones that do not help nature but subject it, like money, but human art invented to facilitate exchanges, so that they were like measures for venial things, and influenced by Boethius will question whether wealth is in fact the one that gives all goods:
“Bliss is the perfect state where all goods come together.” Now, it seems that through money you can acquire all things, because the Philosopher, in book V of Ethics, money was invented to be the guarantee of everything that man wanted to possess. Therefore, bliss consists of riches ”(Thomas Aquinas, theological suma. Part III).
Even with the possession of a broader idea of wealth, the natural wealth that Aristotle predicted, and artificial wealth as well, in none of them will Aquinate recognize it as a source of happiness, because it has no end in itself, and people who own them make it the ultimate end, it becomes a bond for something.
And what value this bond can have in itself, Tomás de Aquino examines honor, and says in this sense: “it is impossible for the beatitude to consist of honor. The honor is rendered to someone due to some excellence: and thus, it is a sign and testimony of that excellence that is in the honored one ”, it can also be the fame or glory, the power, and the goods of the body, but all these goods in themselves they also do not translate into happiness, but only false knowledge.
That is how bliss is itself, she says verbatim:” bliss is the most stable of goods “, so the lack of stability of fame occurs due to the fact that it derives exclusively from human knowledge, which, in turn, instead, it is limited, and it is often even false.
Similarly, Boethius argued: “human power cannot avoid the torment of worries, nor the sting of fear”.
As for the body, argues the Christian philosopher: “, the beatitude of man is superior in every way to that of animals, although many animals surpass men in the goods of the body”, so if beatitude comes from there, man would be equaling to animals, and how often this is true.
But what then is happiness for Doctor Angelico, who asks the same question as Boethius: “‘ Is it necessary to confess that God is the beatitude itself? ” and he will conclude that “the beatitude is the last end, towards which the human will naturally tends” and “for nothing else must the will tend as for the last end, except for God, for it must be the object of I enjoy, as Agostinho says ”(AQUINO, 2003, p. 62).
Here you can have a synthesis of what happiness is for the three great Christian thinkers of the medieval period.
For some authors, like Luiz Alberto De Boni, the philosophy of Tomás de Aquino along these lines: “the good and the end are identified”, thus has an eschatology, and if we understand that the end is just this earthly life limited to a temporal period his argument is not valid, but if we admit eternity, happiness as the ultimate good is that which we have already achieved here but which must extend beyond temporal life, outside of this, of course, only temporal pleasures.
In Picture above, by an anonymous author, The rich man and Lazarus, (around 1610, Amsterdam).
AQUINO, Tomás (2003). Theological summula. V. III. Brazil, São Paulo: Loyola.
Bliss and beatitude
Although the term is associated with Christian holiness, and is also one of its aspects, the term in classical antiquity had a more generic meaning, a permanent state of perfect satisfaction and fullness that only a wise man could achieve, so thought Aristotle, but today it is conditioned only to the religious sense, it is intended here to show that they can be closer than we think.
The religious meaning is also that of happiness, but in the sense of joy of balanced pleasure of the soul, which can only reach those who enjoy the presence of God, that its fullness can be achieved only in eternal life, but does not mean discarding earthly life, “I have come that everyone may have life, and life in abundance” (John 10:10), so proclaims the evangelist, but what is different between the two proposals for happiness.
Aristotle in the book “Of the causes” will say that the end of beatitude is relative to its desire, so the ultimate nature of this end moves mainly by desire and this is pleasure, so much so that it absorbs man’s will and reason to the point of make other goods despise.
Both Boethius, that the church also beatified him (that is, he proclaimed him happy, blessed and holy), and Aristotle dealt with the theme, and their question is what if pleasure is really the ultimate end of happiness, of beatitude and that it also Tomás de Aquino will argue the contrary.
What Boethius says is that the consequences of pleasures are sad, all those who want to remember their sensualities know it, because, if these could make them happy, there would be no reason why the brutes too would not be considered such, and this is very reminiscent of current cases of abuse and objectionable violence.
For Boethius: “The beatitude is the perfect state of the union of all goods”, and so it seems that through money you can acquire all things, because the Philosopher, in book V of Ethics, says that money was invented for to be the guarantor of everything that man wanted to possess, which today can be translated as money buys everything.
In addition, Boethius also says: “Riches shine more when they are distributed than when they are conserved. For this reason, greed makes men hateful, generosity makes them illustrious ”, and so wealth is not condemned, but its bad distribution.
In the representation above the painting “The cheerful violinist with a glass of wine” (1624) by Gerard van Honthorst (1590-1656).
Vaccines are in the testing phase
All vaccines are in the testing phase, only the Russian vaccine with its mega emperor Putin has approved vaccines, but no one trusts it.
The American group of Modern biotechnology, one of those conducting tests in phase 3 in the United States promising results for December, was asked in September to give more transparency in its reports, almost always delivered to the government in a “confidential” character, reveals the pressures on the FDA (American Medicines Agency) because the election is close and could favor the government, but the company itself does not believe in short deadlines.
Another laboratory at Pfizer, one of the most promising vaccines, sparked controversy this week due to the infection and death of one of the people recruited for testing, a Brazilian volunteer who died, but according to the Bloomberg website the boy was in the group of test placebos and did not receive the active dose of the vaccine.
Clarifying the tests are called double blind, that is, neither doctors nor patients know which version was applied, in some a placebo is applied and in others the vaccine itself, this being one of the most reliable forms of testing, only in cases such as this from the death of a volunteer the dose is revealed.
The controversy of the Chinese vaccine, still without approval and with a deadline for October 2021, is one of the consequences of the politicization of the vaccine that we already warned in last week’s post, social polarization makes any issue, even those that should be everyone’s concern. regardless of ideology.
The problem of mandatory vaccination must be dealt with democratically, and the controversy does not help the public consensus, which in this case is already unlikely, the politicization of the issue is regrettable, judicialization is even more regrettable, I remember the case of drug addicts whose involuntary hospitalization has not been approved.
The testing phase, according to experts and the WHO itself, should continue for 2021, any premature anticipation of the vaccine will be as serious as the pandemic itself, and the result can be disastrous and subject to lawsuits.
We hope that the vaccine will come, that there will be a worldwide consensus on its validity, that the politicization of the theme will decrease and that we can emerge less polarized from the pandemic, is an altruistic theme, but we need to hope for a better humanity, if not so much suffering in a disastrous year that it was worthless.
What makes love loved
Hannah Arendt sought in Augustine of Hippo for her answers to Love, brought great contributions in the philosophical field to the theme, far beyond the classic division of the Greeks: agape, eros and filia; but as the contemporary philosopher Julia Kristeva observed, she went no further than the philosopher Augustine, for there is also the theologian.
In addition to the intelligent division of her doctoral thesis: “Love in Saint Augustine”, Arendt herself emphasized the philosophical character of the work of the Bishop of Hipona, by emphasizing: “he never completely lost the impulse of philosophical questioning” (Arendt, 1996), his bases of Cicero, Plato and Plotinus are noticeable in his work.
Arendt’s choice to divide his dissertation into three parts is due to a willingness to do justice to Augustinian thoughts and theories that run in parallel. So each part “will serve to show three conceptual contexts in which the problem of love plays a decisive role.”
She also realizes the importance of Amor Caritas, but as she sees it is not theological, but only within human possibilities, Julia Kristeva when talking about Love goes further by stating: “love is the time and space in which ´I´ give myself the right to be extraordinary“, while Arendt is clear that there is a difference between Caritas and Cupiditas, who loves the world, the things of the world.
But the question of Augustine that must also be answered by Christians is what “do I love when I love my God?” (Confessions X, 7, 11 apud Arendt p. 25), the fifth essence of my interior, it is true as Augustine thought that I find in me what connects me to eternity, but there is beyond the fifth essence or Other outside, not just God , but that Other that passes by me, the one whose identity is hidden in the human envelope of the Other that has God in him too.
What I love when I love God, is thus extended to Love humanity, concrete in each Other that I relate to, and is beyond the fifth essence of my “I”.
So Caritas is the extraordinary in me, both Arendt, Kristeva and Augustine himself are right in part, but the God I love is now also present in the Other, which is beyond my mirror and beyond my inner essence.
Perhaps the biggest trap made for Jesus by the Pharisees is in the question, after Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, it was in the question (Mt 22,36) “Master, what is the greatest commandment of the Law?”, And Jesus will answer (Mt 22, 37-39): “Jesus replied:“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your understanding!’ That is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is similar to this: ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’ ”, and concludes that this is the synthesis of the entire Law and of the prophets.
Hannah Arendt quotes this passage, but the sequence is clear you will love with all courage and soul, theological aspects and then with understanding, the philosophical.
However, the updated question is this of Augustine: “What do I love when I say that I love God?” and if the answer is also “The neighbor as yourself”, that is, with its inner essence directed to the Other, it means that I cannot say that I really love Love, which comes from God, if it is not the Love caritas.
Arendt, Hannah. (1996) Love and Saint Augustine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Figure: Textures and acrylic on canvas. January, 2018. Eva-sas Gallery.
Still love in Saint Augustine
What made Hannah Arendt conclude that a Civilization of Love was not possible, in addition to her personal experience as a Jew who would not return to her “home” in Israel, she still had to make plans for this, is the misunderstanding of Caritas Agápico , the true love.
Philosopher Julia Kristeva released a reserved report by advisor Karl Jaspers about her advisor Hannah Arendt, it seemed to her that her student that her student at the time “[…] was able to underline the essentials, but that she simply did not meet everything Augustine said about love. […] Some errors appear in the quotes. […] The method exerts some violence on the text. […] The author wants, through a philosophical work of ideas, to justify her freedom in relation to Christian possibilities, which, however, attract her. […] Unfortunately, it does not deserve the highest mention [cum laude]. Indeed, Arendt seems to favor, in Augustine, the philosopher, to the detriment of the theologian. ” (KRISTEVA, 2002, p. 41).
Philosopher Kristeva points out the essential point by going deeper into Augustine’s thought, and asks what kind of love the philosopher referred to and whether there was more than one type of love, in addition to the already known filia, agape and Eros: “Numerous terms decline the concept of love in Augustine: love, desire (with its two variants, appetitus and libido), charity, lust, forming a true ‘constellation of love’ (…) ”. (KRISTEVA, 2002, p. 42).
What was revolutionary about Augustine’s strong Christian message, in addition to his intellectual and theological capacity, was the notion of liberation from ancient laws, which some incorrectly call legalism (these are not “human” laws), centering on love the basis of religion was possible to overcome Augustine’s previous affiliation with Manichaean dualism, to which a good part of theology and philosophy are still attached, the latter but more linked to current rational-idealism.
It will be impossible to think of a civilization that overcomes hatred, violence and the dualistic division of society without true charity, one that extends to all, one that admits diversity, and one that seeks justice, as Augustine thought: “where there is no charity there can be no justice ”, and thus the greatest desire for justice must be based on charity, even if it seems too altruistic, or mushy, just look at what hatred has built but wars and violence.
The set of volumes of Julia Kristeva’s “Female Genius” (1941-) is to analyze and pay tribute to three thinkers of the 20th century, perhaps the best known Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), Melanie Klein (1882-1960) and Colette (1873-1954).
Julia Kristeva is considered a structuralist (or post), along with Gérard Genette, Lévi Strauss, Jacques: Marie Lacan, Michel Foucault and Althusser, she also has an important work on semiotics. as a mosaic of quotations ”(Kristeva, 2005, p. 68) and also:“ The text does not name or determine an exterior ”(KRISTEVA, 2005, p. 12), thus stating that literature does not account for the real.
KRISTEVA, Julia (2002). O genio feminino. The female genius: life, madness and words. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
KRISTEVA, Julia (2005) Introdução à semanálise. Introduction to semanysis. Translation by Lúcia Helena França Ferraz. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Digital transformation beyond Buzzword
We alerted and problematized in the 10 years of this blog the transformation that was being led by digital changes, social, educational, industrial and even behavioral aspects, most of the skeptics reacted, mocked or despised a real change that was happening.
The pandemic has shown that more than necessary tools can build bridges, establish new relationships, energize companies and avoid wasting time, money and especially in these times, endangering health.
Now everyone lives in the digital reality, companies have survived through online services, families, social groups, public services and meetings of various types depend on digital tools, shows depend on lives, meetings or posts on social media tools.
A buzzword emerged very strongly called the “digital transformation”, but the danger of opportunism is great for companies and sites that exploit and mystify these services and charge dearly for it, so some concepts are necessary, first what happens differently in generation Z of previous call of millennials, those who were born at the beginning of the millennium, therefore before the year 2000, which is now 22 to 37 years old.
The millenials followed the evolution of the Web (the pages, websites and blogs), they were born in a reality in which computers were an appliance, so they were only used at home and optionally at school, while generation Z through cell phones took the digital world to everywhere, create chat groups and behave differently with the credibility of websites, blogs and media networks, create their own relationships and idols, in general different from everything that is known.
Although more closed and with a tendency to have little social relationship, they are more critical than millennials, who are more anxious, more efficient and more demanding.
Thus, relations with the market are very different, they return to prefer shopping in physical stores and select well what they buy, less impulsive and already have the technology with excellent support, although very connected they already know the limits of technology.
Major economics magazines like Forbes and Fortune have done generation Z analyzes to understand the necessary market transformation, Forbes says it represents 25% of the current world population, digital is a natural part of their lives, like TV and the radio of past generations, while Fortune claims that 32 of generation Z are striving for a job of their dreams and rule out taking on any job, although temporarily accepted to lift the future.
Thus the old CRMs (Customer Relationship Management) do not work and many criticisms and analyzes made for the millennial generation are outdated.
According to Kasey Panetta, a researcher at Gartner, 5 new concepts are emerging: Composite architectures, agile and responsive architectures, Algorithmic trust, products, links, websites and reliable transactions, Beyond silicon, the limits of Moore’s law of the evolution of computers, now technologies smaller and more agile are sought, Formative Artificial Intelligence (AI) adaptation to the client, customization of services, times and location, and the Digital Me concept, a kind of passport to the digital world, tools and websites that already know the client and their needs, forms of behavior and preferences.
So the entire digital universe that seemed stable is also going to collapse and much of what is called “digital transformation” is just a digital mystification.
Panetta, Kasey. 5 Trends Drive the Gartner Hyper Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2020. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/5-trends-drive-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2020, Access: September 15, 2020
Love in Saint Augustine
This was Hannah Arendt’s doctoral thesis with direct influences from Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, initially his supervisor, who later passed the guidance to Karl Jaspers due to his personal involvement with Arendt, so some understanding of phenomenology and existential ontology is needed.
We ended last week with a reflection on politics and religion precisely from the compilation of Posthumous Works by Arendt herself, and what we want to point out is the possibility of a civilization based on the principles of Love, in the sense of charity (theological virtue) and as Augustine saw it.
Far from being an apology for this elevated form of Love, it sees contradictions and will develop the question of love for God, love for one’s neighbor and oneself, and uses phenomenology to deepen this theme, but it is a hasty conclusion to say that phenomenology opposes or even favors these feelings, which in themselves are rather contradictory, for example, love for one’s neighbor and oneself has different nuances for the vast majority of people.
His conclusion is that it is not possible to form a human society based only on charitable love (always remembering that it is a theological virtue and not simple generosity) and the central point is to analyze Augustine only from a philosophical point of view, since Arendt he had no interest in the theological aspects.
Arendt for dividing his dissertation into three parts is due to a desire to do justice to Augustinian thoughts and theories that run in parallel. Thus, each part “will serve to show three conceptual contexts in which the problem of love plays a decisive role” (this quote is taken from an English translation that Hannah Arendt herself works with and differs from Portuguese).
The first part Arendt will analyze “What do I love, when I love my God?” (Confessions X, 7, 11 apud Arendt p. 25), in the second part she discusses the relationship between the creature and the creator, she titled the chapter “Creature and Creator: the remembered past”, and in the third part she discusses social charity.
In the first part, the author discovers that God is the quintessence of his inner self, God is the essence of his existence, and when he finds God in himself, man finds what he lacked: his eternal essence. Here, love for God can relate to self-love, for man can love himself in the right way by loving his own essence.
In the end, the second part will discuss the relationship with others, how to love them as God’s creation: “[…] man loves the world as God’s creation; in the world the creature loves the world as God loves. This is the realization of a self-denial in which everyone, including yourself, simultaneously regains its God-given importance. This achievement is love of neighbor. ”
In the third part of the dissertation, entitled “Social Life”, which Arendt dedicates to what she calls “social caritas”, the relevance of the neighbor, and the love for neighbor gain new justification, will discuss the adamic principle of sin and will say that this is the principle that will link us to Christ, who comes to redeem us from this sin.
Here the contradiction with Augustine appears: “It is because all men share this past that they must love each other:“ the reason why one must love one’s neighbor is because their neighbor is fundamentally their equal and both share the same sinful past ”, so it is not the foundation of Love, but of sin that makes us equal to others nearby. ”
By choice, man must deny the world and found a new society in Christ. “This defense is the foundation of the new city, the city of God. […] This new social life, which is based on Christ, is defined by mutual love (diligire invicem) ”, there is a work by Augustine dedicated to this:“ city of God ”, and the thesis that is only so philosophical it focuses only on the mundane (or human, as you wish) relationship, it does not see man as having a divine origin and made for Love.
For Arendt what makes us brothers and I can love them in caritas, in true love, and this is expressed in Augustine, according to Arendt, reconciles the isolation generated by the commandment to love God with the commandment that says to love your neighbor, ending the dissertation.
According to Kurt Blumenfeld, a friend of Arendt who had great importance in his involvement with Judaism and politics, the answer to the question was Zionism and a return to Palestine, but emigration there was never part of Arendt’s plans. vita socialis your answer about Love, did not understand caritas.
Arendt, Hannah. (1929) On the concept of love in the thought of Saint Augustine: Attempt at a philosophical interpretation] (PDF) (Doctoral thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Heidelberg) (in German). Berlin: Springer.
Vaccine politicization and care
Last Wednesday (10/14) the Ministry of Health of Brazil presented to the states’ health secretaries a vaccination schedule against the covid-19 that would start in April 2021, the forecast is for the AstraZeneca vaccine, developed in partnership with the University of Oxford, which is in the third testing phase and should be produced in Brazil by FioCruz, in Manguinhos, in the state of Rio de Janeiro.
Some governors, in particular the state government of São Paulo, have interests in the Chinese company Sinovac, although China is also betting on the Oxford vaccine, this vaccine is being tested by the Butantan Institute of the University of São Paulo, and the Secretary of Health of São Paulo Jean Gorinchteyn told newspapers in São Paulo that “vaccines are not being treated in a republican way by the Ministry of Health, since the Chinese vaccine may have 46 million doses available in December and another 14 million by February 2021 and 40 million by June 2021.
But the dispute does not stop there, the American giant Pfizer announced on Friday (16/10) that it can apply for an “emergency” authorization for its vaccine against covid-19 until the end of November, said Albert Bourla, CEO of the group in a letter published on social media: “Let it be clear, assuming the data is positive, Pfizer will request an emergency use authorization in the United States shortly after the security step, in the third week of November, which indicates that it also wants to participate in the dispute, although it starts vaccination in the USA.
Because of a request from the German partner BioNTech, there was a request for a 2-month wait for the second dose of the vaccine (this vaccine is in two doses), but Albert Bourla shows politicization by stating that “we could know if our vaccine is effective or not at the end of October ”, I remember that the American elections take place on November 3, and this would be an asset for Donald Trumph.
According to the World Health Organization, and infectious disease Claudio Stadnik da Santa Casa, only 10 vaccines are in phase III, and the forecast if the schedule is followed, only vaccines from AstraZeneca / Oxford, Sinopharm (China) / Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (China) and Sinopharm (China) / Beijing Institute of Biological Products (China) would be ready in July 2021 while Moderna (USA) and Sinovac / Biotech (China) in October 2021.
So politics aside, this would be the real picture following the sanitary and medical precepts, to anticipate is to give possibility to error and lives are at stake.
See the graphic above: Source: World Health Organization and Cláudio Stadnik, infectologist at Santa Casa Hospital in Brazil.