fortune--2020-09-05--Kenosha’s unusual economic evolution made it the perfect political flashpoint

In the span of less than two weeks, the city of Kenosha, Wis., has gone from an unassuming bedroom community nestled on the shores of Lake Michigan, into a flashpoint for the social and political fault lines that have flared up during this most fraught of election years.
The shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, by a police officer in Kenosha on August 23 has reignited the tensions that sparked a national protest movement after the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis earlier this year. Thousands of protesters have taken to Kenosha’s streets over the past two weeks, raising their voices against police violence that disproportionately affects communities of color. The demonstrations have also devolved in arson, looting, and property destruction, as well as violence that has left multiple people dead.
But though Kenosha has been in the news daily as of late, many may be unfamiliar with the city’s former status as a hotbed of American industrial activity—and its gradual transition into a hub for the services-based economy of today.
Police prepare for President Donald Trump’s visit on September 1, 2020 in Kenosha, Wis. Kenosha is recovering from several days of unrest and demonstrations following the shooting of Jacob Blake. Blake was shot seven times in the back on August 23 in front of his three children by a police officer in Kenosha. Scott Olson—Getty Images
Located roughly 30 miles south of Milwaukee and 50 miles north of Chicago, Kenosha was once home to a sprawling automobile plant run by the old American Motors Corporation. For most of the 20th century, AMC produced millions of vehicles in Kenosha, with iconic cars like the Rambler American and AMC Pacer having rolled off of its vast lakefront facility.
But by the 1980s, Kenosha’s automaking prospects—like those of the American auto industry at large—had taken a turn for the worse. Chrysler, led by CEO Lee Ioccoca, bought out AMC in 1987, and by the end of the following year it had shuttered the Kenosha plant, ending a nearly 90-year tradition of automobile assembly in the city. Chrysler continued to produce engines in Kenosha until 2010, when it became a casualty of the company’s bankruptcy.
Volunteers paint murals on boarded-up businesses in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 30, 2020, at an “Uptown Revival.” The event was meant to gather donations for Kenosha residents and help businesses hurt by violent protests that sparked fires across the city following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Russell Contreras—AP
The death of Kenosha’s automobile industry cost tens of thousands of people their jobs, and turned the city into a casualty of the downfall of American manufacturing. What was once the lifeblood of the local economy—well-paying union jobs that allowed tens of thousands of households to own their own homes, save for retirement, and pursue their American dream—had been stripped away. Like many former industrial hotspots across the country, Kenosha would have to evolve to cope with the realities of a 21st century economy, or else rust away.
In many respects, Kenosha has managed to do just that—making it a relative success story in a nation where so many formerly auto-dependent Midwestern economies have faded into obscurity. It has capitalized on its position between two major metropolitan areas and grown into a bedroom community of 100,000 residents, many of whom (before the coronavirus pandemic, at least) shuttle daily to their jobs in and around Chicago or Milwaukee.
An employee pulls a cart stacked with boxes at the Amazon.com fulfillment center in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 1, 2017. Jim Young—Bloomberg via Getty Images
Perhaps nothing exemplifies Kenosha’s adaptation to the demands of a modern economy than the huge distribution complex that Amazon opened on the outskirts of the city in 2015. Aided by up to $10 million in tax credits from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, the e-commerce giant developed a 1-million-square-foot fulfillment center and adjacent 500,000-square-foot sortation center—a project that has created more than 1,000 new jobs in Kenosha.
Amazon’s decision to set up shop in Kenosha was undoubtedly motivated by its proximity to the bustling Milwaukee and Chicago markets to the north and south, respectively. (The company is set to open an even larger fulfillment center 20 miles north in Oak Creek, located just outside Milwaukee). As online retail and commerce has grown, so has the market for prime industrial property located near major cities, from which companies can distribute their products to customers in those population centers. (Private equity giant KKR paid $176 million earlier this year to acquire the Kenosha properties that are leased to Amazon, reportedly a record price for industrial real estate in the Chicago area.)
Jobseekers fill out forms on laptop computers during an Amazon.com job fair in Kenosha, Wis., in 2017. Jim Young—Bloomberg via Getty Images
In many ways, the evolution of Kenosha’s economy has been that of the wider American economy over the past three decades; sprawling plants and factories have given way to sprawling distribution centers, while manufacturing jobs have given way to warehousing gigs. Kenosha has become a postertown of sorts for this dynamic; between the Amazon facility and that of shipping and packaging materials distributor Uline, Kenosha County has had one of the fastest-growing warehouse sectors in the U.S. in recent years.
While that’s helped offset some of the loss in manufacturing jobs, the warehousing sector in Kenosha still employs considerably fewer people than the tens of thousands who were once supported by the city’s manufacturing industry. What’s more, the quality of those jobs, in terms of compensation and benefits, are usually worse than what Kenosha’s factory workers—many of them unionized—used to earn. Few Amazon warehouse workers make more than $15 hourly minimum wage that the company committed to paying two years ago.
That, too, is reflective of the American economy’s transformation. The tens of millions who comprise the nation’s shrinking middle class are finding it ever harder to obtain, and maintain, well-paying jobs with the kinds of wages and benefits that would allow them to pursue their own American dreams. Such anxieties helped lure more than 1.4 million Wisconsinites to Donald Trump’s message of economic populism in 2016—the first time since 1984 that a Republican presidential candidate won the state.
This time, Trump and his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, are using Kenosha as a political football of sorts—though one thrown across racial and cultural lines rather than economic ones. Both candidates visited the city this week: Trump took the opportunity to meet with law enforcement and throw his support behind the police, while Biden met with the Blake family and voiced his support for the protests while also condemning rioters.
Already so emblematic of the ruthless dynamics that have transformed the American economy, Kenosha now finds itself at the center of the racial and social tensions that have dominated the national conversation in 2020.


fortune--2020-09-06--The CEO striving to make vintage, secondhand clothing as popular as fast fashion

Trump ’ s ‘ wrong track ’ gambit : The president is betting that the worse Americans feel , the @ @ @ @ @ reelect him

This is an installment in a special series, Startup Year One, interviewing startup founders about the major lessons they learned in the immediate aftermath of their businesses’ first year of operation.
A Harvard College and Harvard Business School graduate, Shilla Kim-Parker launched her career as an investment banking analyst at J.P. Morgan. Kim-Parker went on to lead the strategy and business development group at Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, where she helped launch new business verticals including fashion, publishing, visual arts, food, and consulting.
Driven by environmental concerns, Kim-Parker saw an opportunity to create a space that would aid in the reduction of pollution in the fashion landscape. Passionate with a desire to help local small businesses—which are majority-owned by women—survive in a fiercely competitive, digital-first world by reaching new consumers worldwide, Parker cofounded retail startup Thrilling in 2018.
Thrilling scours vintage boutiques and secondhand stores nationwide, curating a selection of one-of-a-kind items while also supporting small businesses. The Los Angeles–based company promotes an environmentally friendly approach to fashion by encouraging shoppers to fall (back) in love with vintage.
On the heels of announcing a major partnership with Banana Republic, Fortune recently spoke with CEO and cofounder Kim-Parker to learn more about her business, the lessons learned, the hurdles overcome, and plans for the next year.
The following interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Thrilling CEO and founder Shilla Kim-Parker Courtesy of Thrilling
Fortune: From investment banking with J.P. Morgan in London to leading strategy at Lincoln Center in New York City, opening a vintage clothing business seems like a dramatic departure from your previous work experiences. What inspired you to launch Thrilling? How does Thrilling source its inventory?
Kim-Parker: Throughout all the twists and turns of my career, I had been drawn toward the idea of building something with my own two hands, so to speak. While my jobs have all been all-consuming, whenever I had spare moments I would scribble down ideas, noodle over business plans, even conduct small pilots and experiments. The idea for Thrilling evolved over years, until finally, at 36 years old, pregnant with my second child, I felt compelled to quit my dream job at Disney/ABC to launch it.
I grew up secondhand shopping; for me, it’s simply shopping. It’s not only great value, but I absolutely love the thrill of the hunt. You’re finding gems that you know you’ll treasure forever, that are unique, interesting, well-made, and delightful.
I have also become quite energized about the impact of the apparel industry on the environment, and the relationship many shoppers now have with clothes; we have almost come to see them as disposable. Not only does the apparel-production process consume massive amounts of natural resources, the industry is one of the leading contributors to global warming.
We have honestly made enough clothing to last humanity for generations. It’s just a matter of making all that clothing discoverable, accessible, and appealing.
The final part of my motivation for Thrilling is that I am passionate about supporting small businesses. I come from small-business owners: My grandparents started the first black-owned business (a dry cleaners) in Kinston, N.C., in the 1950s. They battled harassment, discrimination, and a wall of socio-political opposition. Nevertheless, they survived and thrived for nearly 40 years.
Thrilling enables small mom-and-pop shops to sell online, reach new customers and geographies, and generate critical new sources of revenue, especially important during a pandemic.
Thrilling is a Black-owned digital marketplace for vintage shopping sourced from local stores across the United States. Courtesy of Thrilling
When shoppers think of secondhand stores, they might think of consignment stores, and they might think of thrift shops. But Thrilling is billed as a more modern approach to secondhand shopping. What does that look like, and what is Thrilling doing differently to attract shoppers?
There are more secondhand stores across the U.S. than there are Starbucks and McDonald’s combined, and yet 99% of their inventory is completely offline. We created a technology and an operational process that allows us, working hand in hand with the store owner, to put their inventory online, often for the very first time. That means that whether you’re in Topeka, or Tokyo, or Toronto you can finally shop an amazing vintage boutique in Portland. Or if you’re looking for something in particular—a denim jacket, or maxi dress, or pair of boots—you’ll be able to search vintage inventory across the U.S. and find the item you need, and filter by size or color preference.
We also create collections based on season, or what we are seeing is trending based on search data. For example, we recently launched a vintage caftan collection, which was enormously popular. They’re perfect for hot summer months, and they’re an easy way to feel stylish. Other examples of recent collections: bridal, tie-dye, slips, plus-size.
Thrilling promotes an environmentally friendly approach to fashion by encouraging shoppers to fall (back) in love with vintage. Courtesy of Thrilling
Retailers have taken quite a hit during the pandemic. How has business fared in the resale and vintage space? Do you find customers looking for certain types of clothes or styles over others?
Our sales have grown 50% month over month, every month since January. We have definitely seen that shoppers are voting with their dollars in terms of spending with companies that align with their values. They’re looking for eco-friendly alternatives to fast fashion without sacrificing style. Most of our stores are also women-owned or BIPOC-owned, and there’s been a growing awareness to not only support local indie shops but to also support traditionally marginalized communities.
No surprise, there’s been a trend away from formal event–oriented wear, but other than that there hasn’t been much change. Our shoppers have always loved bright colors and patterns, well-made designs, and unique artistry—anything that helps authentically express their personalities and individuality.
A model wearing a dress sold at one of Thrilling’s vintage locations. Courtesy of Thrilling
Thrilling recently launched a collaboration with Banana Republic to promote sustainability in fashion. But the Gap Inc. subsidiary could easily fall within the category of fast fashion, which is the antithesis of sustainability. What does the collaboration hope to promote and achieve?
Banana Republic was a small vintage shop in Mill Valley, Calif., in 1978, started by wife and husband Patricia and Mel Ziegler. It eventually became the first successful chain of vintage shops in the U.S., until Gap acquired them in 1983.
The company approached us with a sincere desire to honor their roots and support small mom-and-pop vintage shops across the U.S. Environmental impacts seem also top of mind for the company; Gap Inc. has announced initiatives to substantially improve their supply chain and production processes.
The collaboration consisted of Thrilling curating a collection, aligned with Banana Republic’s style guidelines, from our partner stores. Banana Republic would then use their platform and megaphone to help shed light on our store partners, and also generate sales of the collection.
We launched one month into the pandemic. At that time, Thrilling had announced that we would not take commission on any sales on our site for at least two months so that every dollar could go back to these stores who were all struggling to survive. To their credit, Banana Republic matched our offer, and they also gave up all commission on every sale for that collection.
Post-pandemic and five years down the road, where do you see Thrilling in the market?
I am hoping that secondhand shopping becomes a habit for everyone. And whenever an impulse or need to shop arises for any consumer, they think of secondhand first. And that it is not viewed as a marginalized activity, but just merely as “shopping.” It’s on Thrilling, and the other incredible companies in the space, to continue to make secondhand shopping as appealing, as relevant, and as accessible as possible so that everyone has no choice but to participate.


fortune--2020-09-06--Trump’s ‘wrong track’ gambit: The president is betting that the worse Americans feel, the more likel

Trump’s ‘wrong track’ gambit: The president is betting that the worse Americans feel, the more likely they are to reelect him

A second lockdown proposed by Trump would get more support from Americans than one proposed by Biden

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump stood at the West front of the U.S. Capitol and delivered what historians described as “one of the most ominous inaugural addresses ever.” As the rain began to fall, timed cinematically to the start of the President’s remarks, Trump offered a dark and despairing portrait of the country he was about to lead—a landscape of “rusted out factories scattered like tombstones,” a nation infested with crime and marauding gangs. Vowed the newly sworn-in Commander-in-Chief: “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
Some 43 months later, as Trump strives to make the case for reelection, he and others in his campaign and Administration are still painting that same picture of American carnage—calling daily attention to the “violent mayhem“ that they claim is still laying waste to a big chunk of the country.
In June, in the placid Rose Garden of the White House, the President lamented that “our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others.” On July 4th, in the shadow of South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore, he spoke of “angry mobs“ unleashing a “wave of violent crime in our cities.” In August, at a Republican National Convention replete with high-decibel alarms, Trump intoned about the “violence and danger in the streets“ and warned of anarchists “ripping down our statues and monuments right outside.”
The difference between now and Inauguration Day 2017, of course, is that Trump is no longer the swaggering outsider insisting that only he can fix what’s broken—he’s the man in charge who, if we’re to believe his own rhetoric, has allowed lawlessness and chaos to fester. For a “hire me again” strategy, it’s an unorthodox message to promote.
“What we’ve seen historically is that incumbents running for reelection try to convince people that things are good,” says Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor and researcher at Gallup, the venerable polling company. The argument is “Elect me for four more years, so we can keep this going,” he says. “Obviously, it’s harder to do when things aren’t going as well. But yes, it does seem unusual trying to convince people that things are bad. I guess maybe that goes back to 2016 and how he got elected in the first place.”
Trump, to be sure, isn’t trying to convince voters that things are terrible and terrifying everywhere—just in the cities and states led by Democrats. But that number is hardly negligible. Consider that nearly two-thirds of the 100 largest cities in America—places that generally serve as the economic centers of the majority of states in the union, both red and blue—have Democratic mayors. Eight of every 10 Americans, around 250 million people, live in an “urbanized area,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. So when the president rails against the “smoldering ruins of Minneapolis, the violent anarchy of Portland and the bloodstained sidewalks of Chicago,” as he did at a late August rally in Scranton, Pa., there is inevitably a risk that it will reflect upon Trump’s own ability to lead the country as a whole.
Some of the collateral damage from the president’s latest American carnage campaign, in fact, can be seen in Gallup’s “U.S. Satisfaction“ survey, which the firm has been conducting since 1979. In the most recent poll (July 30 through August 12), a mere 13% of the 1,031 respondents said they were “satisfied by the way things are going” in the country, compared with 84% who said they were dissatisfied—the lowest positive measure recorded since the financial crisis in 2008.
For comparison, in the days leading up to the 2012 election, when President Obama was seeking a second term, the satisfaction index was at 33%, which was then the lowest level for any reelected incumbent. (Former one-term presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both faced electorates whose satisfaction levels were wallowing in the teens and low 20s when they lost their reelection bids, Jones says.)
Trump’s rating is down precipitously from February—before the novel coronavirus began its lethal swing through the U.S., before the shutdown, before unemployment soared to the moon—when 45% expressed satisfaction with the direction of the country, the highest level during Trump’s presidency so far.
More striking still is the decline over that five-month span in the share of Republicans who feel confident about where America is headed (see chart). In the Feb. 3-16 poll, 80% of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with the direction of the country. By the poll ending Aug. 12, that share had fallen to 25%. Democrats dropped from 13% satisfied to 4% over the same period; independent voters, from 38% to 12%. (Another survey is currently in the field, Jones says, which will reflect some of the impact of both political conventions; so it’s possible that the Republican mood may brighten some.)
Other polling firms phrase the question in a slightly different way, asking whether people “feel that things in this country are heading in the right direction…or heading down the wrong track?” Here, too, the share of Americans who believe we’re on the “wrong track” hit a nearly seven-year high on Aug. 3, according to the average of such polls calculated by the website Realclearpolitics. On that date, the average for the wrong-track share was 70.7%, the highest percentage since October 2013. As of Sept. 5, in the wake of the conventions and some other tightening poll numbers, that figure has dipped to 65.8%. In late February, by contrast, fewer than 55% of Americans felt that we were headed the wrong way.
While the share of Republicans saying, specifically, that the country is on the “wrong track” is generally lower than it is in the Gallup satisfaction survey, the numbers here are striking as well. In the Sept. 2 Reuters/Ipsos tracker, 35% of Republican voters (and 78% of independents) gave a thumbs down to the country’s direction. Morning Consult and Politico, meanwhile, pegged the share of disaffected Republicans at 44% in their August tracker, though the percentage of GOP women expressing the same dismay was a red-flag-waving 51%.
As bad as those numbers might seem for the Trump camp, however, there’s little likelihood that the president’s campaign will abandon the strategy. Indeed, they’re almost certain to double down on it.
“To run as an incumbent, you have two options that you can hope for. One is that it’s a referendum and you can say, ‘I’m great. Reelect me.’ The second is that it’s a choice,” says Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor for the Atlantic, who has written extensively about American politics. “Right now, it’s a referendum. Trump is trying to make it a choice.”
On most levels, framing the election as a choice is unlikely to help him. In poll after poll this summer, voters have consistently said they believe former Vice President Joe Biden would do a better job than the incumbent on the most pressing of issues, from responding to racial inequality to tackling the coronavirus. Biden has also gained ground on the question of who would be a more able shepherd of the economy, drawing mostly even with the president on that front.
But one area where the Trump camp can move the fulcrum is in the amorphous category of fear.
“Trump knows that there were significant numbers of college-educated suburban white voters, many of them long-time Republicans who supported him [in 2016] in places like Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Detroit, in the suburbs of Milwaukee, and elsewhere, who then abandoned him and the Republicans in 2018,” says Ornstein. “And what he’s hoping he can do is to get a sufficient number of them scared at violence in the cities—and the fear that it could spread to their suburbs—to come back to him.”
“I’m skeptical of that strategy,” Ornstein adds. “The idea that people will believe this is what Biden’s America will bring when it’s what Trump’s America is already bringing is not going to fly terribly well.” (Worth noting: In the eight years that Biden served as vice president under Obama, the violent crime rate actually fell 13.1% and property crime dropped 23.7%, according to the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Reporting.) “Still, you know, you can’t say that it will be a complete failure,” he says. “There’s always the chance that it will turn some of those votes at the margins back towards the president or at least get them not to vote.”
In a game of inches—as the 2016 battle for the electoral college was—that could make the difference.


fortune--2020-09-06--Apple’s iPhone sales have lagged in India for years. It’s only now unleashing its branding firepower

On Aug. 22, 2008, crowds gathered at phone stores across India to catch a glimpse of the iPhone 3G launch, the first-ever smartphone to be sold in the country. In Mumbai, a phone vendor even marked the occasion with showers of confetti and cheerleaders.
Before the launch, Apple’s then chief operating officer Tim Cook said in a statement that he “couldn’t wait” to get the “iPhone 3G to millions of mobile customers in India.”
The iPhone made a flashy and highly-anticipated entrance to the Indian market, where Apple sold the devices through Indian carriers Bharti Airtel and Vodafone India. But in the 12 years since, Apple’s captured just 2% of India’s smartphone market, which now totals a half billion users. By contrast, it owns 46% of the market in the U.S. and 8.5% in China.
Apple was eager to arrive in India, but the country has been a somewhat inhospitable host. Until last year, India banned foreign retailers from selling products directly unless they sourced at least 30% of their goods from India. The rule meant Apple could not open physical or online stores in India, forcing it to rely on third-party sellers and neutralizing its branding firepower.
But now a series of changes—deregulation, India’s anti-China actions, and shifts in Apple’s supply chain—are poised to reshape India’s smartphone, market, perhaps in the iPhone maker’s favor.
India’s 30% rule
India first introduced the 30% rule for foreign retailers in 2012, after previously banning foreign standalone shops entirely.
The restrictions were aimed at promoting Indian-made goods, but they hamstrung brands like Apple, which sources 48% of its products’ component parts from China. Apple did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Without a direct avenue to customers, Apple has been at the mercy of third-party sellers. Sixty-nine percent of its products are sold at physical third-party retailers, and the rest through e-commerce companies like Amazon and Flipkart, says Shilpi Jain, an analyst at Counterpoint research.
An artist performing during the launch of new iPhone 7 at world showroom DLF promenade at Vansant Kunj on Oct. 7, 2016 in New Delhi. The store is one of many third-party retailers Apple has relied on to sell its products in India. S Burmaula—Hindustan Times/Getty Images
Physical retailers “prioritize inventory that sells the fastest,” meaning that they often stockpile fewer Apple items than cheaper, often Chinese-made, products, says Abishur Prakash, a technology and geopolitical analyst at consulting firm Center for Innovating the Future. Therefore, Apple products in India “have never received the attention that Apple places on them in its stores,” he said.
The reliance on third parties also has hindered customer efforts to repair iPhones. In 2019, Buzzfeed reported that Apple’s third-party retailers are often unable to provide even simple fixes.
India’s restrictions have been such an impediment to the Cupertino-based giant that CEO Tim Cook personally waged a campaign to change them. In June 2017, Reuters reported that Cook raised the issue in a meeting with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C. In pushing for the rule change, Cook credited Indian developers with creating roughly 100,000 apps on Apple’s app store, which generated upwards of 740,000 jobs in India, according to Reuters.
Other foreign retailers like home furnishings giant Ikea also lobbied for a roll-back of the regulations, but Ambareesh Baliga, an independent market analyst in Mumbai, says Apple’s overtures likely carried extra weight given its prominence and Cook’s direct appeal to Modi.
In late August 2019, India relented, announcing that single-brand retailers could now set up their own online and physical stores without meeting the 30% made-in-India threshold.
“The changes will result in India becoming a more attractive [foreign direct investment] destination, leading to benefits of increased investments, employment, and growth,” Piyush Goyal, India’s commerce minister, said at the time.
Apple heaped praise on Modi’s administration for the move.
“We appreciate the support and hard work by Prime Minister Modi and his team to make this possible,” an Apple spokesperson said. Cook has also credited the Trump administration for intervening on Apple’s behalf and urging the Indian government to change the policy.
Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in March 2019. Apple credited the Trump administration with helping convince India to lift rules that had restricted how Apple sold products in India. Al Drago—Bloomberg/Getty Images
The company immediately indicated its intent to open its own stores in the country. “We’re eager to serve [Indian customers] online and in-store with the same experience and care that Apple customers around the world enjoy,” the spokesperson said.
The plans materialized quickly.
In February, Cook announced that Apple would open its first retail store in India in 2021. “We like to do things our way,” Cook said of opening the first brick-and-mortar store in India on an earnings call.
And last week, Bloomberg reported that the American tech giant plans to open an online store for India this month.
The physical store, in particular, will introduce Indians to the ‘Apple experience’—sleek product displays, Instagramable design features, doting store employees—that has enchanted customers elsewhere. “The rush to place an order for a new iPhone online or lining up for hours outside a physical store speak to the power of Apple brand and the critical role the stores play,” said Prakash. Opening stores in India represents an “unparalleled” opportunity for Apple, since it will be able to “develop roots” in the country, he said.
The store openings, Jain says, will offer Apple the chance to finally “connect with its customers” and grow a “loyal customer base.”
Price point
Still, Apple has to navigate what is arguably its biggest hurdle in India: its phones are among the most expensive on the market.
In 2019, the average smartphone sold in India cost roughly $160, whereas iPhones range from $400 to over $1,000. The disparity helps explain why Apple holds a 49% share of the premium smartphone market in India but only 2% of the overall market.
Its main competitors are Chinese smartphone makers, four of which—Xiaomi, vivo, realme, and OPPO—combined to sell nearly half of all smartphones in India in the second quarter of 2020, according to the International Data Corporation. Chinese smartphones sold in India are less expensive—Xiaomi’s cheapest model costs about $75—plus, the Chinese brands have tailored their strategies to India by relocating supply chains to the country and investing in research and development centers and local distribution partners, says Sanchit vir Gogia, CEO of digital advisory firm Greyhound Research in Mumbai.
By comparison, “Apple hasn’t done justice to [the Indian market],” vir Gogia said.
Apple attempted to make inroads with its cheaper iPhone SE in India in 2016. But at $400, the model’s specs did not “compare well” with Chinese phones of the same price, Baliga said.
Apple’s phone sales in India reportedly rose 23% to 3.2 million in 2017, the year after it introduced the iPhone SE launch, but in 2018, they sunk 50%.
Like its Chinese rivals, Apple is now concentrating more of its supply chain in India. It began assembling the SE model at a plant in Chennai in 2017, and confirmed in August that it will assemble the latest 2020 version in India too. That news followed reports in July that Apple would assemble some new iPhone 11s in the country. Goyal, the Indian commerce minister, has confirmed the iPhone 11 report; it will be the first time Apple has produced its premium iPhone model in India.
Apple’s efforts to assemble more iPhones in India will help it avoid the 20% tariffs that India imposes on imported smartphones, which has the potential to lower the handsets’ price points. (The cost of tariffs are often passed on to consumers.)
Border clash fallout
Apple does have one distinct advantage over its Chinese rivals that’s become relevant only recently: it’s not Chinese.
After Chinese and Indian troops clashed in a deadly border dispute in June, political parties and citizens in India issued calls to boycott Chinese goods. The Indian government banned 59 Chinese apps from app stores in India, citing security concerns. This week, the Indian government banned another 118 Chinese apps as border tensions reignited. Amid those actions, there’s evidence that China’s dominance in India’s smartphone market may be fading.
Congress party supporters protest Chinese-made goods in Kolkata on June 18, 2020. A border clash between Indian and Chinese troops has raised anti-China sentiment in India. DIBYANGSHU SARKAR—AFP/Getty Images
When accounting for all Chinese phone makers, Counterpoint research estimated that in the spring of 2020 Chinese firms controlled a record 81% of India’s smartphone sales, a share that fell to 72% in the summer.
The drop is due, in part, to “growing anti-China sentiment that was compounded by stringent actions taken by the government,” Jain said.
“[India’s] flareup with China makes India incredibly attractive for Apple,” says Prakash. “As Indian consumers seek alternatives [to Chinese goods], Apple can offer its lineup of products and services.”
Fresh competition
In addition to Chinese smartphone makers, Apple faces competition from other American tech firms that are now eyeing the same market.
In July, Google announced a $4.5 billion investment in Indian tech conglomerate Jio Platforms, which includes plans to produce a new, cheap smartphone. Google and Jio have not said how much the phone will cost, but Counterpoint research projects that they will likely sell it for less than $140.
“Together we are excited to rethink, from the ground up, how millions of users in India can become owners of smartphones,” Google said at the time.
Apple is looking to establish itself anew in India—but it’s not the only one.


fortune--2020-09-06--More than manufacturing: India’s homegrown COVID vaccines could transform its pharma industry

India is known as “the pharmacy of the world,” and the nickname is well-deserved. The second-most populous country is a drug manufacturing powerhouse. One in three pills consumed in the U.S. is made in India. Its factories churn out more than half the globe’s total vaccine supply and produce more generic drugs than anywhere else.
Already, India is likely to be an essential player in the manufacturing of a COVID-19 vaccine. One of the country’s pharmaceutical giants is starting to produce hundreds of millions of doses of a leading contender.
But in the race to defeat the coronavirus, India wants to do more than be the world’s workhorse; it also wants to harness science to bring the pandemic to an end. At least seven Indian pharmaceutical companies are working to develop a vaccine and two have progressed to human trials, an achievement Prime Minister Narendra Modi has touted as a source of national pride.
An indigenously-developed vaccine with a rapid rollout could be crucial for India, where nationwide lockdowns failed to prevent India from becoming the country with the fastest-growing number of coronavirus cases in the world, with over 68,000 deaths and more than 3.9 million confirmed infections.
If an Indian pharmaceutical company is able to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to the commercial market, it could transform the industry’s reputation, giving India a globally-distributed coronavirus vaccine that’s not just made or tested in India, but developed there, too.
Generic expertise
India’s pharmaceutical industry is best known for producing generic drugs, which are identical to brand-name drugs but less expensive because they’re made after the patent on the branded version has expired.
A government push in 1970 to wean India off costly imports and manufacture cheaper medicines for its own citizens led to legal reforms that kickstarted growth of India’s generics industry. A new law allowed patents on manufacturing processes, but not the end product, which incentivized Indian pharmaceutical firms to develop alternate ways to produce existing drugs.
Those reforms proved especially prescient a decade and a half later, when the U.S. Hatch-Waxman Act relaxed generic drug regulation in the U.S., a “crucial” development for India’s generic industry, said Sudarshan Jain, secretary-general of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance. The law made it easier for generic drugmakers to enter the U.S., and India was well-positioned for the resulting ramp-up of generic drug production worldwide.
“By the time you got to the 1990s you already had a very…well-developed pharmaceutical industry, which was very good at the manufacturing side of producing drugs. So literally anything that was out there, India was capable of making those combinations,” said Sujay Shetty, India pharmaceuticals leader for professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Today, the pharmaceutical sector is responsible for 2.5 million jobs in India. It’s a significant contributor to GDP and the third-largest contributor to reducing India’s trade deficit, said Sathya Prathipati, senior partner and leader of the pharma practice in India for McKinsey.
An employee checks a vaccine vial labeling machine at a Serum Institute of India pharmaceutical plant in Pune, India in 2015. The Institute working with AstraZeneca to produce a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford. Sanjit Das—Bloomberg/Getty Images
The cost of producing drugs, including vaccines, in India is relatively low because of cheaper labor and the nation’s large-scale manufacturing facilities. A rotavirus vaccine by Indian pharma giant Bharat Biotech, for example, cost one-fifteenth as much as rotavirus vaccines developed outside of India.
“A [coronavirus] vaccine developed in India would be far cheaper than a vaccine developed anywhere else,” said Chandrakant Lahariya, a vaccinologist and public health expert who has published research on the history of vaccines in India. The affordability of a COVID-19 vaccine is paramount; if doses are prohibitively expensive, it could hamper distribution, prolonging the pandemic and costing lives.
The largest vaccine maker in the world is the Serum Institute of India, a private family-run drug company founded in 1966 and headquartered in the western Indian city of Pune. It’s partnered with pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca to produce the Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine, which a World Health Organization (WHO) official dubbed the world’s most advanced coronavirus vaccine candidate. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
Serum plans to price one dose at $3 for India and other emerging economies, Reuters reported on Aug. 25.
In comparison, Pfizer and German biotech firm BioNTech SE made a deal with the U.S. government to charge $19.50 per vaccine dose, and Moderna said in August it is charging between $32 and $37 in some deals for its vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine is being manufactured in the U.S. and Germany; Moderna’s vaccine is being manufactured at sites in the U.S. and Switzerland.
Serum chief executive Adar Poonawalla has said half the doses will go to India and the other half will go to the rest of the world, especially poorer countries.
‘Very good at the D side’
India’s drug manufacturing prowess is unparalleled, but its pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) lags behind by comparison.
“It’s a big industry and the industry is less into research to develop new vaccines, it’s more geared towards producing … vaccines in a very cost-effective manner,” said Shaheed Jameel, a virologist and chief executive officer of the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, a public charity that funds biomedical and health research in India.
India’s pharmaceutical industry as a whole spends around 6% of total earnings on R&D, versus 20-25% among global pharmaceutical firms, said Reji K. Joseph, an associate professor at the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development in New Delhi who researches patents and India’s pharmaceutical industry.
For example, R&D spending as a percentage of sales was 26% for AstraZeneca in 2019. (Firms in India also spend a smaller share of their revenue on R&D because related costs like labor and building construction are generally cheaper, according to Joseph.)
Many Indian firms focus exclusively on generics; the leading Indian firms that do invest in R&D tend to focus on developing and improving on generic drug formulas. Multinationals in the U.S. and Europe, meanwhile, tend to focus on creating new chemical entities for new drugs.
The strength and success of India’s generics industry has meant that there isn’t as much incentive for generic drugmakers to diversify into riskier—and more expensive—research of new chemical entities.
“Most companies [in India] have not ventured into the development of new medicines. They are still in the production of generics…so they don’t need to invest heavily in R&D,” Joseph said.
“India’s very good at the D side, the development side,” Shetty said. “It’s more like incremental innovation, so in terms of broad innovation or [research], it’s relatively small.”
R&D expenditure is increasing slowly, Joseph said, but technological and financial constraints have kept it from growing at a faster pace. “The development of new drugs involves a lot of investment and [many] companies cannot sustain such investments” on the scale of American and European pharmaceutical giants, he said. “Even the largest Indian firm is small compared to western [multinational corporations].”
Normally, said Jameel, the emphasis on manufacturing over R&D isn’t a drawback for India’s pharmaceutical industry, but “one lesson that Indian R&D is learning from [the coronavirus pandemic] is that you must have platforms that you can very quickly repurpose to make vaccines for a new pathogen that has emerged,” Jameel said.
Having existing vaccine platforms reflects prior investment in research. Oxford used existing technology, a chimpanzee adenovirus vaccine vector, to make its vaccine. Moderna, another global frontrunner for a coronavirus vaccine, made use of its experimental zika virus mRNA vaccine platform to develop its vaccine candidate. Zydus Cadila, one of the Indian companies working on a COVID-19 vaccine, created its experimental DNA vaccine platform from scratch; Bharat Biotech, another Indian vaccine player, developed its coronavirus vaccine on a Vero-cell platform.
Three vaccine contenders
The Zydus Cadila and Bharat Biotech vaccine candidates are two of 37 potential coronavirus vaccines currently undergoing human trials around the world.
“Everybody today is concerned about coronavirus. Everyone wants to know when the vaccine will be available. Our scientists are working tirelessly.” Modi said in a national address on the ramparts of Delhi’s Red Fort on Aug. 15.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed coronavirus vaccine candidates in a national address on India’s 74th Independence Day on Aug. 15 in Delhi. Xinhua/Getty Images
“Not one, not two, as many as three coronavirus vaccines are being tested in India,” Modi said, referring to the vaccines indigenously developed by Bharat and Zydus. He also counted in his tally the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine that the Serum Institute is set to manufacture.
Bharat Biotech, based in Hyderabad, is a known commodity in India’s vaccine sector, having launched an H1N1 influenza vaccine in 2010 and successfully developed and launched vaccines for Japanese encephalitis in 2013 and rotavirus in 2015.
For its coronavirus vaccine, called Covaxin, it’s collaborating with the Indian Council of Medical Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison virologists and U.S. biotech firm FluGen. Covaxin is an inactivated vaccine, meaning it contains “dead” particles of the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that are no longer disease-producing, but will still prompt an immune response from the inoculated person.
Bharat conducted phase one trials of Covaxin across 12 sites in India, and will likely start phase two trials this month, according to local media reports.
“Most of the vaccines come from the Western world. But I am happy to share that the two vaccine candidates from India are actually in the lead with the rest of the world,” Suchitra Ella, joint managing director of Bharat Biotech, told the Times of India on July 30.
Bharat Biotech declined to comment.
Zydus started its phase 2 human clinical trials on Aug. 6 at multiple sites across India. Its vaccine candidate, ZyCoV-D, is a DNA-based vaccine. It contains genetically-engineered DNA molecules called plasmids that resemble those of the coronavirus. Inactivated vaccines are the easiest to make, while DNA vaccines—which the WHO describes as a “radically new approach to vaccination”—have never been approved for human use anywhere in the world, Jameel said.
Headquartered in Ahmedabad, a city in the western coastal state of Gujarat, Zydus is one of India’s biggest pharmaceutical companies and a large generic drugs manufacturer. It also has a track record of vaccine winners, including an immunization for a seasonal influenza, one for chickenpox, and one for rabies. Zydus did not respond to request for comment.
“I’m very hopeful that at least one, if not both of these will do well, and if that happens then we’ll be spoiled for choice,” Jameel said.
Every country for itself?
As the pandemic wears on and scientists around the world race to develop a safe and effective cure, some experts have expressed a fear of ‘vaccine nationalism’—of countries developing vaccines with an eye to inoculate their own citizens first, rather than working towards global distribution.
A health worker collects a swab sample from a woman to test for the coronavirus at a primary health center in Hyderabad on Sept. 4, 2020. NOAH SEELAM—AFP/Getty Images
India’s government hasn’t yet struck official procurement deals with its domestic vaccine makers, but in mid-August, a government committee met with the three firms whose vaccines are undergoing human trials in India, to discuss a potential distribution deal and find out how soon, and at what price, the firms can produce vaccine doses.
Serum’s Poonawalla told the New York Times that although he plans to send half of the Serum-produced vaccines to poorer countries around the world, India’s government “may still invoke some kind of emergency if they deem fit or if they want to.”
India’s government has previously blocked companies from exporting potential COVID-19 treatment drugs, reportedly to ensure Indian citizens had access to the medications. (The government later lifted the restrictions.) So far, India’s government has not objected to Serum’s distribution plan.
Global collaborations led by agencies like the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations will play an important role in global vaccine distribution and stockpiling doses for poorer countries, Lahariya said. At the same time, he added, “There’s already a sort of consensus developing that if any country develops a vaccine, of course they’ll keep a higher proportion for within their country.”


fortune--2020-09-07--A Chinese vaccine maker is injecting employees and their families with its COVID-19 candidate

Dr. Yin Weidong, chief executive of the Chinese vaccine maker Sinovac Biotech, told Reuters on Sunday that 90% of Sinovac’s employees—as many as 3,000 workers—and their families have been injected with the company’s leading COVID-19 vaccine candidate even though it hasn’t completed late-stage trials.
Sinovac and other Chinese firms are currently in the pole position in the global race for a vaccine, contributing to five of the nine vaccine efforts that have reached late-stage Phase III trials. Sinovac’s announcement demonstrates how Chinese firms are pushing the envelope in developing a potential vaccine, engaging in unorthodox and potentially troubling methods to reach the finish line first.
Yin showcased his company’s vaccine candidate to the public for the first time at a trade show in Beijing on Sunday. He said that he and Sinovac employees had been injected with the vaccine as a safety protocol to ensure that a potential COVID-19 outbreak wouldn’t impede Sinovac’s research and manufacturing processes.
“As a vaccine developer and manufacturer, a new outbreak could directly impact our vaccine production,” Yin said at the trade show.
Yin said the distribution of the vaccine to Sinovac workers and their families occurred under China’s emergency-use vaccine program, a government policy that allows specific populations of people to receive unproven inoculations.
At least two other Chinese vaccine makers have distributed their vaccines under the emergency program.
In late June, the Chinese vaccine maker CanSino announced that its vaccine candidate had been approved for use in the Chinese military. Chinese state media reported in late July that a vaccine developed by Sinopharm, a state-owned vaccine maker, was being distributed to frontline medical workers.
China’s government, however, didn’t confirm the existence of the emergency program until Aug. 25 when Zheng Zhongwei, head of China’s coronavirus vaccine task force, said that the government had started approving unnamed vaccine candidates for emergency use in late July. The emergency program is intended to vaccinate high-risk groups like medical workers, pandemic response officials, and border inspection agents, Zheng said. He said that China was considering expanding it to cover workers at produce markets, transport industry officials, and service workers.
Sinovac’s candidate, named CoronaVac, has already begun large-scale, Phase III human trials in Brazil and Indonesia. Yin told Reuters on Sunday that the company had received approval to begin trials in Turkey and Bangladesh too.
The company says it will eventually be able to produce 300 million CoronaVac doses annually; each patient requires two doses of the vaccine. It recently signed an agreement with Indonesia to supply the country with 40 million doses by March 2021.
Observers have questioned the ethics of China deploying vaccine candidates before the conclusion of Phase III trials, which include tens of thousands of human volunteers and are intended to test for efficacy and turn up any rare side effects.
“If you are a regulatory body, if you play by the rules, if you are hard-nosed about it, you say this is very wrong,” Ray Yip, the former head of the Gates Foundation in China, told the New York Times following reports that China had distributed vaccines to employees of state-owned companies.
China’s emergency-use vaccine program is taking place as the U.S. debates whether to introduce a similar policy.
Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control told states that they should prepare for the distribution of a potential vaccine by Nov. 1, a timeline that raised the prospect of a vaccine getting early, emergency clearance from the government.
Some U.S. officials have cautioned that no vaccine should be given even to select groups until it completes clinical trials and is proven safe and effective.
“The one thing that you would not want to see with a vaccine is getting an EUA [emergency-use authorization] before you have a signal of efficacy,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told Reuters on Aug. 25. Beyond not being safe, he said that rolling out a vaccine under emergency guidelines would undermine the U.S.’s other efforts to produce a vaccine. “If you prematurely let a vaccine out…it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the other vaccines to enroll people in their trial,” Fauci said.


fortune--2020-09-07--Brexit trade talks face bleak future as U.K. reportedly plans to undermine existing agreement

There are fewer than six weeks left for the United Kingdom and the EU to finalize the terms of their new trade deal, if it is likely to enter into force by the end of the Brexit transition period on Dec. 31.
But as things stand, it seems increasingly unlikely that any deal will appear—an outcome that would mean massive trade barriers flying up between the U.K. and its giant neighbor as 2021 dawns.
Sticking points around fishing and state-aid rules remain unresolved, and now the U.K. may be set to infuriate the EU by ripping up several key points in the Brexit withdrawal agreement, a treaty that was ratified by both sides in January.
On Sunday, the Financial Times reported that the British government is planning to undermine the withdrawal agreement in three ways, all of which relate to the contentious issue of Northern Ireland—the part of the U.K. that features its only land border with an EU member state, namely the Republic of Ireland. As goods and people can move freely through the EU, this border is crucial to the future U.K.-EU trading relationship.
Undermining the deal
According to the FT, a new internal market bill will allow the British government to avoid notifying the EU when introducing state-aid measures that affect businesses in Northern Ireland; the agreement says all such state-aid decisions must be notified to Brussels.
The bill, due to be proposed Wednesday, would apparently also allow Northern Ireland businesses to avoid filing export paperwork when sending goods to the British mainland. Again, this is a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement.
Meanwhile, the law implementing the U.K.’s upcoming fall budget would “have much the same effect on the potential obligation to collect tariffs on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain,” the FT reported.
If the report is accurate, there would likely be a strong effect not only on the Brexit trade talks—Prime Minister Boris Johnson enthusiastically signed the withdrawal agreement in January, so overriding it just months later would be a staggering move—but also on the U.K.’s trustworthiness in other future international diplomacy. Such as, for example, the negotiation of a U.K.-U.S. free-trade agreement.
“We are taking limited and reasonable steps to clarify specific elements of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law to remove any ambiguity and to ensure the government is always able to deliver on its commitments to the people of Northern Ireland,” a Johnson spokesman told Reuters Monday.
The government has established Oct. 15 as the absolute deadline for the negotiations to yield a deal—a reflection of the fact that the EU has been hoping to be able to endorse the deal at a summit on Oct. 15–16, before its adoption and signature in November.
“If we can’t agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free-trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson will reportedly say Monday, according to remarks given to Reuters ahead of time by his office.
Fishing and state aid
The FT’s bombshell report came shortly after the government’s chief negotiator, David Frost, told the Mail on Sunday that the U.K. would not accept the EU’s red lines on fishing rights (it wants to maintain access to British waters) and state aid (it wants the U.K. to follow EU rules so as to maintain fair competition).
“We are not going to accept level playing field provisions that lock us in to the way the EU do things,” Frost said. “We are not going to accept provisions that give them control over our money or the way we can organize things here in the U.K. and that should not be controversial—that’s what being an independent country is about, that’s what the British people voted for, and that’s what will happen at the end of the year, come what may.
“If we can reach an agreement that regulates trade like Canada’s [trade deal with the EU], great,” the negotiator added. “If we can’t, it will be an Australian-like trading agreement and we are fully ready for that.”
The British government has repeatedly talked about following the model of Australia’s trading relationship with the EU. However, as there is no EU-Australia trade deal, that effectively means a no-trade-deal Brexit.
In practice, that would mean hefty EU tariffs on many British goods—agriculture secretary George Eustace spoke Monday of 40% duties on British beef—and regulatory barriers for British financial services, which can currently operate freely across the English Channel.
With coronavirus cases soaring again in the U.K., it is clear that such an outcome would arrive at a moment when the country and its economy are already under great stress. Much rides on the round of negotiations that will take place Tuesday to Thursday this week.
Abbott appointment
If Australia is code for no-deal in this context, it is a little ironic that former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was on Friday appointed as a trade adviser to the U.K. government.
Abbott’s appointment was controversial in the U.K. because of sexist and homophobic comments he has made in the past. But it has also proved controversial back home, on conflict-of-interest grounds. Senior opposition figures in Australia have called for Abbott to be registered as a “foreign agent.”
The former Prime Minister has never been a popular figure, and his appointment drew a degree of mockery in Australia, with one newscaster creating a viral moment by smirking that “beggars can’t be choosers.”
Australian TV on the UK appointing Tony Abbott as a trade advisor.
"Beggars can't be choosers." pic.twitter.com/NAVfU9vTWf — Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) September 6, 2020
This article was updated to include the Johnson spokesman’s statement to Reuters.


fortune--2020-09-07--A summer of protests exposed deep demands for change—and entrenched obstacles

Memorial Day brought the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, prompting hundreds of thousands of Americans to take to the streets in protest. President Donald Trump called Floyd’s death a “disgrace” and momentum built around policing reform.
But by Labor Day, the prospects for federal legislation have evaporated. And Trump is seeking to leverage the violence that has erupted around some of the protests to scare white, suburban voters and encourage them to back his reelection campaign.
The three-month stretch between the symbolic kickoff and close of America’s summer has both galvanized broad public support for the racial justice movement and exposed the obstacles to turning that support into concrete political and policy changes. It has also clarified the choice for voters in the presidential race between Trump, who rarely mentions Floyd or other Black Americans killed by police anymore, and Democrat Joe Biden, who argues that the summer of protests can become a catalyst for tackling systemic racism.
Polls show Biden has an advantage among Americans when it comes to which candidate can manage the country better through the protests. An ABC News/Ipsos poll out Friday showed that 55% of Americans believe Trump is aggravating the situation. When it comes to reducing violence, Americans favor Biden to Trump, 59% to 39%.
“No matter what he says or what he claims, you are not safer in Donald Trump’s America,” Biden said Friday.
Yet Trump’s campaign also sees an opportunity to appeal to some voters who may be turned off by scenes of violence cropping up around some of the protests, including in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where police shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, seven times last month. The president has openly directed his appeals at the “suburban housewives of America” — especially white housewives — casting his reelection as the only thing preventing violence in cities from spilling into their neighborhoods.
Trump traveled to Kenosha this past week, thanked law enforcement for their efforts and met with people whose businesses were destroyed in fires. He did not meet with Blake’s family. Biden did, on Thursday, while on a visit to the city.
A Marquette University Law School poll that came out before the Aug. 23 shooting showed that support for the protests had slipped from 61% in June to 48% in August among voters in Wisconsin, one of the most crucial states in the November election. Among white Wisconsinites, approval of the protests dipped from 59% in June to 45% in August. Approval increased slightly for Black voters, to 78% from 77%. While approval fell among members of both parties, the dip was larger among Republicans.
“I think that there was a lot of optimism surrounding the protests this summer in the wake of George Floyd because for the first time, we were starting to see all of these white people in the United States pay a great deal of attention to police brutality and racial injustice,” said Ashley Jardina, assistant professor of political science at Duke University, and author of the book “White Identity Politics.”
“But white Americans have always had a low tolerance for protests and unrest around race in the U.S., and that’s particularly true when they think that protests become violent or involve the destruction of property,” Jardina added.
The majority of racial justice protests have been peaceful. But some, including in Kenosha and Minneapolis, saw vandalism and violence. Federal officials have arrested more than 300 people since the demonstrations began. A Trump supporter is charged with homicide in the shooting deaths of two protesters in Kenosha, and an anti-fascist shot and killed a right-wing protester in Portland, Oregon, and was later killed during his arrest by law enforcement.
Trump has also tried to link the protests to local increases in shootings, murders and other crimes in cities, including Kansas City, Missouri, Detroit, Chicago and New York, even though criminal justice experts say the spike defies easy explanation in a year with historic unemployment and a pandemic that has killed more than 180,000 people. Crime overall remains lower than it has been in years past and criminologists also caution against a focus on crime statistics over a short time frame, such as week-to-week or month-to-month.
Dan Cooper, a white 51-year-old software engineer in Portland, remains supportive of the protests and the Black Lives Matter movement but fears the vandalism is “playing into the right’s hands.”
“It makes Portland look bad and it makes it easy for the right to portray the city as being fundamentally lawless when in reality it’s this tiny area downtown that’s mostly peaceful otherwise,” he said.
“A few months ago they started off in a more BLM-focused way. It does seem like they’ve lost their way a little bit,” Cooper said of the protests.
Steve DeFeo, a white 49-year-old manager at an insurance company in Edgewater, Florida, shares that concern. He said that while he supports the protests and the Black Lives Matter movement, he worries that violent protesters allow others to inaccurately portray the movement as dangerous.
“That message gets amplified when you go out and spray-paint and throw rocks and light fires,” he said. “When you see a burnt building, that is helping the wrong side of the narrative. It’s not as effective for the BLM movement and keeping their message for what it should be.”
National Black Lives Matter organizers have never asked for, encouraged or condoned looting or fighting with law enforcement or police supporters on the streets, because they are protesting the violent harm done to their communities.
Thenjiwe McHarris, a strategist with the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition of more than 150 organizations, said Trump’s effort was a “desperate tactic to paint our movement a particular kind of way to stoke fear in communities across the country and to try to steal this election.”
“What does it mean for the president of the United States to call the movement violent and dangerous and chaotic? It means that he’s putting a target and a bull’s-eye on thousands and thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, who are courageous and bold enough to say that Black lives matter.”
Leaders say the movement isn’t losing steam and the coalition has only begun to move toward its next phase of advocacy and grassroots work, and the majority of people support it “because they understand that what’s happening to Black people is such a grave injustice,” McHarris said.
Federal police reform stalled on Capitol Hill after an initial burst of movement. Nationwide, since late May, there have been at least 450 pieces of policing reform proposals introduced in 31 states, according to a count by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many states had finished their normal legislative session at the time of Floyd’s death and are planning to address police accountability next year.
Meanwhile, some within the movement have grown frustrated with what they see as outsize attention on the violence — even those accused of endorsing that violence.
“You think people want to go out and destroy property? Absolutely not,” said Hawk Newsome, a New York activist whose comments about protest violence on Fox News prompted a tweet from Trump. “This is a last resort. People just got so frustrated at a lack of progress, lack of clarity, lack of transparency, lack of truth.”
Newsome said the way to keep the movement going forward is to educate people about white supremacy and systemic racism and how both are knit into the fabric of America and must be unraveled in order to progress. But that’s not easy to talk about in a sound bite, and Newsome blames both Democrats and Republicans for a lack of nuance and accountability.
Breanna Wright, 24, of Louisville, Kentucky, participated in more than 20 demonstrations in her hometown, where Breonna Taylor, a Black woman, was killed by police in March. Wright says she remains focused on turning the protests into action.
“Everyone is putting Black Lives Matter on the street, Black Lives Matter in their windows,” she said. “That changes nothing for me because next week they’ll murder me on your Black Lives Matter decorated street.”
“I mean, it’s cute, you’ve tried—thank you! It’s touching that you’ve done that!—but the system has to change.”


fortune--2020-09-07--Alibaba and Xiaomi join Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index to reflect dominance of Chinese tech

Three mainland Chinese firms entered the Hang Seng Index (HSI) on Monday in a landmark step that reflects the growing dominance of Chinese technology companies on Hong Kong’s stock market.
The 51-year-old index added e-commerce giant Alibaba Group, electronics and smartphone maker Xiaomi Corporation, and biotechnology firm Wuxi Biologics as constituents. The move gives more weight to “new economy” technology companies on the traditionally finance-heavy index.
Since the HSI’s last constituent shake-up in March 2019, “the Hong Kong stock market has changed a lot…the overall market structure is starting to change and this is creating more room for the new economy segment to rise to greater prominence,” according to HSI’s August 2020 review.
The report says “sizable newcomers” like unicorns, or private firms valued at over $1 billion, and overseas-listed Chinese companies have listed since March 2019 or plan to list in Hong Kong. The three Chinese tech companies were added to ensure the HSI “remains the most representative and reliable barometer of the Hong Kong market,” the report says.
The HSI also launched the tech-specific Hang Seng Tech Index in late July, another indication of tech firms’ increased sway on the city’s exchange. Besides Alibaba and Xiaomi, the biggest firms in the Hang Seng Tech Index are other mainland Chinese tech giants like shopping platform Meituan Dianping and gaming giant Tencent Holdings.
The addition of Alibaba and Xiaomi to the HSI continue Hong Kong’s efforts to make its exchange more attractive to big tech companies. An increasingly unfriendly regulatory environment in the U.S. has pushed several U.S.-listed Chinese firms to seek secondary listings in Hong Kong, and contributed, in part, to companies like Ant Group, the world’s most valuable unicorn, eschewing a U.S. listing altogether.
In adding the three tech companies on Monday, HSI, a 50-stock index, removed snack company Want Want China Holdings, mining firm China Shenhua Energy, and developer Sino Lan.
Alibaba and Xiaomi are the first companies with weighted voting rights to join the HSI.
According to a Sept. 6 Jefferies report, April 2018 listing reforms that allowed companies with weighted voting rights to list in Hong Kong led 99 tech, IT, and biotech companies to issue new shares representing 23% of Hong Kong’s total market capitalization.
The inclusion of Xiaomi and Alibaba in the HSI recognizes the effects of the reforms and the spate of secondary listings of companies that trade in the U.S., the report said.
“The HSI has begun to reflect these changes with [Xiaomi and Alibaba] being included…In our view, it is not unthinkable that the index will be expanded as more companies come to the market,” the Jefferies report said. “We remain bullish on the HSI.”
Alibaba listed in Hong Kong in November 2019, following a 2014 debut on the New York Stock Exchange; it is the first HSI constituent to have Hong Kong as a secondary listing. Xiaomi debuted in Hong Kong in July 2018, and Wuxi Biologics debuted in Hong Kong in June 2017.


fortune--2020-09-07--SoftBank stock slides after it’s unmasked as ‘Nasdaq whale’

SoftBank Group Corp. shares tumbled in Tokyo after reports that the Japanese conglomerate made substantial bets on equity derivatives amid the surge in technology stocks.
SoftBank shares dropped as much as 5.7%, the most on an intraday basis since April. The stock had gained 33% this year before Monday.
The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and Zero Hedge reported that SoftBank was making massive bets on technology stocks using equity derivatives. The FT labeled SoftBank the “Nasdaq whale” that “stoked the fevered rally in big tech stocks,” though it didn’t include details of any trading. The FT later reported that SoftBank is sitting on trading gains of about $4 billion from founder Masayoshi Son’s bets on equity derivatives, citing people with direct knowledge of the matter.
to Bull Sheet Subscribe for no-nonsense daily analysis on what’s happening in the markets, delivered free to your inbox.
“SoftBank was riding the Nasdaq wave like a mutual fund,” said Mitsushige Akino, senior executive officer at Ichiyoshi Asset Management Co. “The market is falling now and investors have zero visibility, so they are selling SoftBank stocks.”
SoftBank declined to comment.
The Japanese conglomerate said in August that it was starting a new unit to trade public securities, pushing beyond its traditional base in telecommunications and private startup investments. Bloomberg reported in August that SoftBank was targeting investments of more than $10 billion, perhaps tens of billions, and would use financing structures that would allow the company to avoid showing up in public disclosures of shareholding.
The Japanese company’s derivatives strategy has been built over the past few months, the FT cited the people as saying, adding that SoftBank has spent about $4 billion on options premiums focused on tech stocks over that time. SoftBank now has large but unrealized profits, and the trades have been deeply controversial even within SoftBank, the newspaper reported.
The Wall Street Journal reported that SoftBank spent about $4 billion buying call options on stocks, while also selling call options at higher prices.
The idea that options buyers could drive extreme rallies in technology stocks — and push benchmark indexes to record highs — has drawn skepticism in the past. But as call volumes have exploded in stocks such as Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Tesla Inc., analysts are beginning to embrace the theory. They point out that traders could have outsize influence by concentrating their bets on a narrow set of high-profile names while other trading activity is reduced.
“In a world where volumes are distorted by the frantic trading of algos, any real order flows may have surprisingly large impact on prices,” Peter Tchir, head of macro strategy at Academy Securities, wrote in a note Tuesday. “By trading options, they leverage their position.”


fortune--2020-09-06--17 extremely useful productivity tips from this year’s 40 Under 40

Launching a groundbreaking news organization. Building a better quantum computer. Running for Congress and winning in an upset. Founding a company and taking it public. The honorees on Fortune’s 2020 40 Under 40 certainly know how to get things done, so we asked them to tell us more about how they set and exceed their ambitious goals. We discovered that, for this year’s 40 Under 40, being more productive often means planning ahead and churning through tasks as quickly as possible—but also sometimes just shutting everything off and taking a break.
Schedule time to think…
Diana Avila, 34, global head of banking and expansion at TransferWise
I do not have meetings on Mondays. Instead, I use Monday for “deep work”—anything that requires a lot of focus and time. This allows me to take on more meetings as the week develops and dedicate my time to others because I’ve already accomplished any necessary work.
Margaret Anadu, 38, head of the urban investment group at Goldman Sachs
I try to go for an hour-long walk each morning completely free of any inputs (no music, podcasts, emails, etc.). It’s my time to center myself and to think through what is happening with my family, with my team, and with the partners we work with in underserved communities. This is when I think through some of the most complex challenges facing me in the days and weeks ahead. This intentional, early morning quiet time, while often hard to carve out with two young kids at home, sets the tone for the day and makes me a better wife, mom, leader, and investor.
Henry Schuck, 37, cofounder and CEO of ZoomInfo
Spend time outlining what’s important to you over the next three, six, and 12 months, and then regularly check to make sure you’re spending your time on those priorities.
Charlotte Clymer, 33, writer, LGBTQ advocate, and consultant
Keep a good calendar. Everything goes down in the calendar, regardless of whether it’s drinks with friends or a media interview. It doesn’t mean you have to follow it exactly, but keeping a steady calendar has a way of sharpening discipline. I can’t recommend it enough.
…and to give back
Keia Cole, 39, head of digital experience at MassMutual
I set aside time on Friday mornings for mentoring and networking conversations. I love having the opportunity to connect with people across the organization. I found that creating time and space on Friday mornings makes me more present in those discussions, rather than squeezing people in during the rush of the week. And I am usually more relaxed and joyful because it’s Friday!
‘Just say no’
Suneera Madhani, 32, founder and CEO of Fattmerchant
Just say no. It has not only helped me in my professional life; it also helped personally as I juggle between mom life and work life. Understanding that it is okay to not say yes to everything that comes your way allows you to focus on things that help you move the needle toward your goals.
Build—and rely on—a good team
Matthew A. Cherry, 38, writer, director and producer at Cherry Lane Productions
Surround yourself with good people, and learn how to delegate.
Racquel Bracken, 37, partner at Venrock
Batch email. Nothing is that urgent, and if it is, your team will call or text you. You can waste so much time needlessly checking emails, when really what’s better is to triage them at the beginning and end of every day.
Don’t wait for the deadline
Emily Ramshaw, 39, cofounder and CEO of The 19th*
I’m a pre-crastinator by nature. I do everything immediately; as a result, I’m almost always overbusy, but I’m almost never stressed and crashing on deadline. Pick your poison?
Taylor Lorenz, 35, technology reporter at the New York Times
Set deadlines early so if (or when) you miss them you still have time left before the actual deadline.
‘Turn off the Internet’
Marissa Giustina, 30, senior research scientist and quantum electronics engineer at Google Research
When you really want to get something done, close your email. (Small tip; big impact.)
Ambar Bhattacharyya, 37, managing director at Maverick Ventures
When I need to be really productive, I disconnect from the Internet. I turn off the Wi-Fi on my computer so that I can focus on things like reading through an important document, working on detailed analysis, or writing a thoughtful response back to someone. For me, the No. 1 thing that takes away from productivity is all of the pop-ups, texts, alerts, and email notifications I am constantly receiving on all my devices. They are really hard to get away from unless everything is off and away.
Jose Antonio Vargas, 39, founder of Define American
Turn off the Internet. When I’m thinking, brainstorming, and writing, I turn the Wi-Fi off to limit the distraction and force me to focus.
Rep. Conor Lamb, 36, U.S. House of Representatives for Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District
Put your phone in airplane mode.
Erica Anderson, 36, executive producer at New York magazine and Vox Media
I social distance from my phone! It’s never in the bedroom (helps to get restful sleep), and I leave it alone during meetings to stay present. While I definitely multitask, recognizing that the phone can lessen my productivity is an important part of my personal work culture.
Be kind to yourself
Will Ahmed, 30, founder and CEO of WHOOP
Get more sleep. Being well rested makes everything else easier, especially work.
Kate Rosenbluth, 38, founder and chief scientific officer of Cala Health
Forgive yourself for your failures. It’s so easy to waste energy worrying unproductively about our failures, when you could be redirecting that energy to making meaningful positive impact. You’re probably the only one keeping score of your wins and losses, so drop the self-judgment and instead see your failures as building muscle for your next attempt.


fortune--2020-09-06--Only three of 26 Obamacare-era nonprofit health insurance co-ops will soon remain

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
New Mexico Health Connections’ decision to close at year’s end will leave just three of the 23 nonprofit health insurance co-ops that sprung from the Affordable Care Act.
One co-op serves customers in Maine, another in Wisconsin, and the third operates in Idaho and Montana and will move into Wyoming next year. All made money in 2019 after having survived several rocky years, according to data filed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
They are also all in line to receive tens of millions of dollars from the federal government under an April Supreme Court ruling that said the government inappropriately withheld billions from insurers meant to help cushion losses from 2014 through 2016, the first three years of the ACA marketplaces. While those payments were intended to help any insurers losing money, it was vitally important to the co-ops because they had the least financial backing.
Lauded as a way to boost competition among insurers and hold down prices on the Obamacare exchanges, the co-ops had more than 1 million people enrolled in 26 states at their peak in 2015. Today, they cover about 128,000 people, just 1% of the 11 million Obamacare enrollees who get coverage through the exchanges.
The nonprofit organizations were a last-minute addition to the 2010 health law to satisfy Democratic lawmakers who had failed to secure a public option health plan — one set up and run by the government — on the marketplaces. Congress provided $2 billion in startup loans. But nearly all the co-ops struggled to compete with established carriers, which already had more money and recognized brands.
State insurance officials and health experts are hopeful the last three co-ops will survive.
“These are the three little miracles,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.
Maine aided in Supreme Court victory
The Maine co-op, Community Health Options, helped bring competition to the state’s market, which has had trouble at times attracting insurance carriers, said Eric Cioppa, who heads the state’s bureau of insurance.
“The plan has added a level of stability and has been a positive for Maine,” he said.
The co-op has about 28,000 members — down from about 75,000 in 2015 — and is building up its financial reserves, Cioppa said. Community Health Options is one of three insurers in the Obamacare marketplace in Maine, the minimum number experts say is needed to ensure vibrant competition.
Kevin Lewis, CEO of the plan, attributed its survival to several factors, including an initial profit in 2014, the year the ACA marketplaces opened, that put the plan on a secure footing before several years of losses. He also credited bringing most functions of the health plan in-house rather than contracting out, diversifying to sell plans to small and large employers, and securing lower rates from two health systems during a couple of difficult years.
Jay Gould, 60, a member who offers the plan to workers at his small grocery in Clinton, has been happy with the plan. “They have great customer service, and it’s good to know when I am talking to someone that they are from Maine,” he said.
Central Aroostook Association, a Presque Isle nonprofit that helps children with intellectual disabilities, switched to the co-op last year to save 20% on its health premiums, said administrator Tammi Easler. Having a Maine insurer means any issues can be dealt with quickly, she said. “They are readily available, and I never have to wait on hold for an hour.”
The co-op, which made a $25 million profit each of the past two years, has proposed dropping its average premiums by about 14% in 2021, Lewis said.
Community Health was one of the lead plaintiffs in the case before the Supreme Court and expects to get $59 million in back payments from the settlement.
The federal decision to suspend those so-called risk corridor payments — designed to help health plans recover some of their losses — was one of the factors that caused many of the co-ops to fail, Corlette said. Republican critics of the ACA, however, blame poor management by the plans and lack of oversight by the Obama administration.
Insurers are in talks with the Trump administration about whether the $13 billion due the carriers must be added to their 2020 balance sheet or could be counted toward operations from prior years. This year, insurers are generally banking large profits since many people have delayed non-urgent care because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the ACA limits insurers’ profit margins, adding that federal windfall to this year’s ledger might mean many insurers would have to pay out most of the money to their consumers. If the money is applied to earlier years, the insurers could likely keep more of it to add to their reserves.
Too much competition in New Mexico
The Supreme Court ruling came too late for New Mexico Health Connections, which lost nearly $60 million from 2015 to 2017. The co-op would have received $43 million in overdue payments, but, in an effort to raise needed cash, it sold that debt to another insurer in 2017 for a much smaller amount.
Marlene Baca, CEO of the co-op, which made a $439,000 profit in 2019, said its goal of bringing competition into the market was achieved, since five other companies will be enrolling customers this fall for 2021. Yet, that competition eventually led to the plan’s decision to end operations, announced last month.
With only 14,000 members, it made no sense to continue operating due to high fixed administrative costs, she said. Her plan was also hurt by the slumping economy this year, which pushed many state residents out of work and made more than 3,000 members eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor.
“We did our very best,” Baca said, noting that her company is closing with enough money to pay its outstanding health claims. Many other co-ops that shuttered were closed out by their states and unable to meet all their debts to health providers, she said.
Montana’s Co-Op Is Expanding
The Mountain Health Co-Op, with about 32,000 members, has just two competitors in its home state of Montana and four in Idaho.
A big factor behind its survival was that the plan received a $15 million loan in 2016 from St. Luke’s Health System, Idaho’s largest hospital provider, said CEO Richard Miltenberger. Although he wasn’t working for the co-op at that time, Miltenberger said, it is his understanding that the hospital wanted to help keep competition in that marketplace.
The co-op is expecting $57 million from the Supreme Court victory.
“We are in excellent shape,” Miltenberger said. The plan, which paid back the St. Luke’s loan and made a $15 million profit in 2019, added vision benefits this year and is offering a dental exam benefit for next year. It’s also providing most insulin and medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to members without any copayment to help ensure compliance.
The insurer is moving into Wyoming for 2021, which will end the Blue Cross plan monopoly in that state’s Obamacare marketplace, he said.
Wisconsin’s mystery donor
Wisconsin’s Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative was on the verge of ending operations in 2016 when itreceived a lifesaving $30 million loan, said CEO Cathy Mahaffey. The insurer has refused to identify the benefactor other than to say it was not a person or company doing business with the plan.
In 2018, Common Ground was the only health plan in seven northeastern Wisconsin counties, she said. Today, the co-op has about 54,000 members and faces competition from two to five carriers in the 20 counties where it operates.
Common Ground, which recorded a $73 million profit last year, expects to receive about $95 million from the Supreme Court case victory.
Wisconsin’s decision not to expand Medicaid under the health law has benefited the co-op because people with incomes from 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level ($12,760 to $17,609 for an individual) are ineligible for Medicaid and must stay with marketplace plans for coverage. In states that expanded Medicaid, everyone with incomes under 138% of the poverty level is eligible.
Another factor was its decision in 2016 to eliminate the broad provider network offering and sell a plan offering only a narrow network of doctors and hospitals, allowing it to benefit from lower rates from its providers, according to Mahaffey.
“We are very strong financially,” she said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


fortune--2020-09-06--Gutting this federal program could undermine Americans’ confidence in a COVID vaccine

We may have a coronavirus vaccine as soon as this fall. But millions of Americans already say they won’t get it. More than six in 10 adults think any first-generation COVID-19 vaccine will pose either a “large” or “moderate” risk to their health, according to a new Ipsos survey.
That’s concerning, given that decades of scientific evidence prove just how safe vaccines are. A vaccine offers the best chance of ending the pandemic. Boosting public confidence in them is crucial.
Unfortunately, federal officials are doing just the opposite. Late last month, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a draft rule that would gut the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a little-known initiative that provides payment to the very few people harmed by vaccines.
Scaling back the program would hurt not just those who have been injured but the many more people who count on vaccines to protect them from dangerous diseases.
Few medical advances have saved more lives than vaccines. For example, measles infected nearly 4 million Americans—and killed hundreds—every year before a vaccine was created in the 1960s. Today, the CDC says measles has been effectively “eliminated from the United States” thanks to the MMR shot. The flu vaccine, meanwhile, prevents millions of people from contracting influenza annually and saves thousands of lives.
Just like any other medicine, vaccines can cause side effects. Usually, they’re mild. But on rare occasions, more serious side effects—including life-threatening reactions, diseases, or debilitating shoulder injuries from the vaccine’s contents and improper injections—can occur.
Until the late 1980s, these injuries sparked lawsuits. Juries awarded such large payouts to several parents whose infants were injured by the pertussis vaccine that drug companies ceased production for fear of further litigation.
Policymakers rightly feared that lawsuits like these would chill vaccine development—and lead to more sickness and death in the long run. So Congress passed a law indemnifying drug companies and health care providers from vaccine-related liabilities.
At the same time, lawmakers created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which reimburses people harmed by vaccines for their medical bills, lost wages, and additional pain and suffering. Since 1988, the program has paid out more than $4.3 billion to about 7,400 qualifying victims.
The standards for the program are exacting. More than 60% of adjudicated petitions have been rejected by the court that oversees the program. For every million doses of vaccine distributed, one person receives compensation.
The program has been enormously successful. It enables drug companies to confidently invest in vaccine development. It encourages doctors and nurses to inoculate their patients without fear of a malpractice suit. And it reassures patients they’ll be compensated (my law firm works on such cases), on the off chance they do experience a serious reaction.
The draft rule undermines all three of those objectives. It does so by attempting to delete an injury from the list of those eligible for compensation. That injury just so happens to be the most common: “shoulder injury related to vaccine administration,” or SIRVA.
More than half of all claims that come before the program are for SIRVA. These injuries—which include rotator cuff tears, tendonitis, bursitis, and frozen shoulder—occur when doctors or nurses inject patients too high in the shoulder or choose an inappropriate needle length, and the vaccine causes an inflammatory reaction resulting in injury. People afflicted with SIRVA can require painful surgeries to recover and may lose use of their arms for months or years.
There’s no new science to justify removing SIRVA from the list of covered injuries. But federal officials are struggling with a backlog of claims against the program. Scrapping the most common source of claims would certainly help clear that backlog—at the expense of people who are suffering.
The move could also hamstring public health officials’ efforts to roll out widespread immunization programs against the coronavirus or any other vaccine-preventable disease. If people fear they won’t have recourse if they’re harmed by a vaccine, they won’t get inoculated.
At a time when more than 150,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, the last thing the government should do is give people an excuse to forgo vaccination.
Preserving the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is one of the best ways to ensure widespread participation by doctors, nurses, and patients in vaccination campaigns. Federal officials must rethink their proposed changes to the program.
Leah Durant is a Washington, D.C.-based vaccine injury attorney.