REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA: ELECCIONES Y CORRUPCIÓN
Por Carlos Alberto Montaner
Conozco pocos pueblos latinoamericanos que tomen las elecciones con tanta pasión. El 5 de julio próximo los dominicanos pasarán por las urnas. Afortunadamente, los comicios se han ido depurando año tras año, al extremo de que el Índice Mundial de Libertad Electoral (IMLE), que mide lo que sucede en 198 países y toma en cuenta 55 parámetros, le concede a República Dominicana uno de los lugares más destacados del planeta.
El Índice es publicado anualmente en español e inglés por la Fundación para el Avance de la Libertad, dirigida por Juan Pina desde Madrid, con el patrocinio de la Human Rights Foundation de New York y la colaboración académica de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México. La notable calificación que obtienen los dominicanos, a mi juicio, no es ajena a la labor de la Junta Central Electoral de ese país.
Eso es muy importante. La apatía democrática es la consecuencia de la duda ante el destino del voto. Tal vez el entusiasmo de los votantes tiene una relación directa con la certeza de que su voto será contado. Pero, existe en el país otro asunto mucho más urgente: la necesidad de honradez en la gestión administrativa.
En República Dominicana no se puede seguir robando impunemente. La gente está harta de ver a ciertos políticos y funcionarios que llegan al poder en una discreta medianía económica y unos años más tarde poseen casas suntuosas y todos los síntomas de la riqueza. Algunos se desplazan en automóviles lujosos, yates y helicópteros.
Transparency International es una fundación alemana que mide la corrupción en los diversos países. La única manera de hacerlo, dada la natural discreción de los delincuentes y el carácter secreto de las trampas, es aplicando unos métodos más o menos científicos de “percepción” de la corrupción por parte de la sociedad que la sufre. De acuerdo con TI la República Dominicana ocupa el lugar 137 de las 198 naciones escrutadas. Las más honorables son las escandinavas, aunque dentro de las mejores veinte están los sospechosos habituales de siempre: Holanda, Inglaterra, Estados Unidos, y un no-tan-largo etcétera.
La puntuación sacada por República Dominicana es 28 de un total de 100. Las 20 mejores obtienen más de 90 u 80. Se supone que menos de 50 hay un grave problema que incapacita al país para desarrollarse plenamente. Al menos hay tres países latinoamericanos que pasan esa prueba: Uruguay, Chile y Costa Rica. Pero el peor de todos los países, a la cola del planeta, está la Venezuela de Nicolás Maduro. Más que una nación se trata de un estercolero.
Son obvios los daños que provoca la corrupción. Detiene las inversiones y, lo que es más grave, genera una actitud de que no tiene sentido esforzarse en servir al consumidor con precio, calidad y prontitud, los elementos básicos del mercado saludable, porque la clave del éxito está en tener buenas relaciones con el político o funcionario corrupto.
Lo que no resulta tan claro es cómo frenar o disminuir la corrupción. Tradicionalmente, el Estado es la mejor y más rápida fuente de ingresos para los desaprensivos, especialmente si se tiene en cuenta que venimos de unas costumbres absolutamente tolerantes con formas de comportamiento dudosas. A Hernán Cortés, por ejemplo, lo “premiaron” con los tributos de veinte mil indios por haber derrotado a los aztecas. La Corona española, en épocas de penuria, que eran casi todas, vendía al mejor postor los cargos de la estructura colonial.
Ni siquiera basta con pagarles altos salarios a los empleados públicos. Siempre es posible esperar más. En algunos países se ha experimentado con ofrecerles remuneraciones especiales a quienes ahorran ciertos dineros de los presupuestos. No sé. Eso suele ser peligroso. Imagínense al Ministro de Educación “ahorrando” en los almuerzos de los escolares o en el fomento de las Bibliotecas. Lo que no hay duda de que “funciona” es la transparencia de la gestión administrativa, un poder judicial rápido y eficaz que castigue las violaciones de la ley, y un robusto mercado dentro de la sociedad civil que asigne los recursos convenientemente. En USA, por ejemplo, es mucho más rentable ser presidente de una gran corporación que dirigir el país.
¿Qué pasará en las elecciones del 5 de julio? Según las encuestas, ganará en primera o segunda vuelta el economista Luis Abinader al frente de un grupo llamado “Partido Revolucionario Moderno”, un oxímoron, dado que si es revolucionario no puede ser moderno y viceversa. (Supongo que así se denomina para no alejarlo demasiado del grupo de que se desgajó: el “Partido Revolucionario Dominicano”).
Afortunadamente, el presidente Danilo Medina, líder del “Partido de Liberación Dominicana”, no se postuló. Le convino a su gloria personal. Dicen en el país que Mike Pompeo, el Secretario de Estado norteamericano, lo disuadió cuando Danilo meditaba hacerlo. La tarea que a todos les toca es iniciar un gran debate sobre la corrupción. Si yo fuera Abinader, y si ganara, que eso está por verse, por ahí comenzaba mi mandato.
Excelente reflexión.
La corrupción en política es una consecuencia inevitable de nuestra naturaleza humana que nos presiona constantemente por competir, superar al otro. En lo que sea, tanto en un evento deportivo casero para ver quién escupe más lejos como en riquezas. Es una pulsión que actúa subrepticia y subconscientemente todo el tiempo. Sin descanso. La mayoría cae en la trampa. Por eso, un político que ve a un colega cercano enriquecerse habitualmente no puede resistir la tentación de hacer lo mismo para no sentirse inferior. Compiten, siempre compiten aunque ni siquiera se den cuenta de ello la mayoría de las veces. Enseguida se enteran que un fulano compró un campo y al instante surge la búsqueda de comprar, en otro fulano, un campo al menos igual de extenso. Póngase el ejemplo de status social que se quiera y encontrará la misma experiencia. No falla nunca.
El único sistema de defensa para ésta peste es un sistema judicial eficiente. Pero para tener un sistema judicial eficiente es necesario una ciudadanía que se preocupe por ello. Que presione para que así sea y los poderes estén advertidos que pueden sufrir consecuencias si así no lo hicieran.
Lamentablemente, no surge esta presión por un sistema judicial eficiente desde conductas racionales, meditadas o elaboradas de la ciudadanía que podría conducir a un cambio ante las evidencias de su necesidad. Desde esta posibilidad, las presiones nunca llegan en la medida suficiente por más evidente sea su necesidad. Requiere de una constancia y persistencia que la voluntad de la razón no es capaz de llevarla a cabo. Ante el menor descuido, esa voluntad se desvanece en el aire ¿Cuántas veces vemos reclamar a los pueblos ¡Justicia! y a la semana queda en el olvido? Cientos de veces.
Solamente surgen estas presiones por un sistema judicial idóneo como consecuencia de las buenas costumbres y habitos que caracterizan a las sociedades capaces de lograr un objetivo como éste. Es ridículo echar culpas a los jueces o al sistema si la sociedad no presiona para que los jueces cumplan sus deberes, el sistema funcione como corresponde y los poderes se encarguen de vigilarlos. Esta es una realidad indiscutible. De hecho, los políticos que surgen desde estas culturas tienen costumbres y códigos de conducta iguales a los de sus conciudadanos lo que facilita aún más la ausencia de corrupción.
Una forma de evitar este enorme drama de la corrupción en países débiles culturalmente e incapaces por lo tanto de tener una “justicia justa” podría ser el pago de honorarios altos a los servidores públicos. Tan alto como necesario sea para evitar que recurran a la corrupción para destacar sus egos en competencia con los demás. Tal vez con sueldos altos puedan auto percibirse lo suficientemente ganadores económicamente como para apaciguar sus pulsiones.
Pero ¿Cómo es eso de pagar sueldos de ricos a los funcionarios? No señor, el funcionario público debe ganar lo que la “justicia social extraordinariamente bien nos aconseja” ¿Y si después roban? bueno ese ya es otro problema a ver cómo resolverlo. “El político y funcionario público debe ganar lo que la mayoría de los nobles trabajadores ganan porque son ellos, los trabajadores,los que realmente hacen la Patria”.
Aunque el más simple sentido común indica que si un funcionario público debe emprender enormes tareas para sacar adelante una sociedad y que además se ve privado de hacer una carrera laboral independiente y por tanto debería ganar altos salarios, la respuesta es siempre: pues no señor. La justicia social, la igualdad antes que nada. Cualquier cosa pero no me toques la idea de la igualdad ¿Y si roban por pagar salarios insuficientes como siempre pasa? La respuesta de los justicieros sociales es la misma de siempre: “ah bueno, ese ya es otro problema que alguien debe resolverlo”. ¡La justicia gritan! Pero ¿Si la justicia es absolutamente inepta y cooptada por el poder político? No importa, cualquier cosa menos tocar los paradigmas de la igualdad.
Esta historia se repite en todos los países con ciudadanos incapaces de tener un sistema judicial eficiente. No importa si son Democracias o Dictaduras, para este tema da exactamente igual porque en todos los países la idea de la igualdad y la justicia social prevalece. Ni siquiera el dictador más cruel se anima a romper este paradigma. Hasta los dictadores deben resignarse a que todos sus funcionarios sean ladrones con tal de no enojar al pueblo pagando salarios elevados a sus administradores. Jamás. Tal vez se animen a asesinar en masa a miles de ciudadanos opositores, pero ¿Pagar salarios altos contraviniendo los principios de la igualada social? Jamás. Eso ya seria demasiado osado.
Finalmente: la pulsión por competir, en riquezas entre uno de sus motivantes, lleva a la corrupción. Y la pulsión que nos hace parecer de suma necesidad que en lo posible nadie sea más rico que los demás, a la condena de pagar salarios bajos a los funcionarios aunque todos sepan que van a robar en consecuencia.
Única realiy posible ante escenario determinado por la cultura y los instintos: corruptos por todos lados súper ineficientes con sueldos bajos.
https://razonvsinstinto.blogspot.com/2014/08/instinto-y-cultura-nuestros-verdaderos.html
P/d la imposibilidad de mi fulbito de los sábados por el aislamiento me hacen escribir boludeces. Lo siento.
View in browser | nytimes.com
The New York Times
BREAKING NEWS
Princeton said it would remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from campus buildings and programs, citing the former president’s “racist thinking and policies.”
Saturday, June 27, 2020 1:31 PM EST
“Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time,” Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber said in a statement.
The decision contrasted with a vote by Princeton University’s trustees in 2016 to keep Wilson’s name on campus buildings and programs, despite student protests that led to a review of his legacy there.
No se me ocurre otra forma de decirlo. Que manera de comer mierda.
Ya me parece ver una bola de demolición
Derribando a todos menos a Lincoln
En Rushmore.
Mejor refuercen su seguridad. Just in case these opportunists arrange for that.
New York City officials have agreed to remove a statue of President Theodore Roosevelt from outside the American Museum of Natural History. The statue shows Roosevelt riding a horse flanked by a Native American man and an African man who officials say are depicted “as subjugated and racially inferior.”
The Wall Street Journal
Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Government
I HAVE STARTED TO SAY OVER THE last two years or so, with artificial intelligence, we’ll be able to start seeing government as a service more. If we ever have any politicians that ever understand technology and where it’s going, which is a whole other issue, then they’ll be able to see that as advances occur in AI, there are risks, there are bias risks, there are performance risks, there are accuracy risks. But as we get through those problems, AI as a service can replace that old historical model of the paper pusher. The bureaucrat that just sits at their desk, stamping things all day long and trying to do anything not to work. Technology can start to solve some of those problems in government and make it smaller, but effectively do more and leave more money for the people and the services that we all need.
We know that more people are going to get sick but no one’s talking about health care. There are some basic things on people being added to the ACA. There’s not a lot of talk about Medicaid or the expansion of Medicaid. We’ve got hospitals who’re laying off people and not going out of business yet, but we’re subsidizing. What should hospitals look like next? What should health care look like on the other side of this pandemic, recognizing we might face this again? No one’s having that conversation even a tiny bit.
A Viennese man has been slapped with a $565 fine for farting “with full intent” at police. The incident caused such an uproar in the Austrian capital that authorities were forced to issue an explanation that “of course no one is reported for accidentally ‘letting one go.’” They explained that the man had acted “provocatively and uncooperatively” toward the cops, and then “let go a massive intestinal wind apparently with full intent.” The police statement added, “And our colleagues don’t like to be farted at so much.”
France’s contact-tracing app has been downloaded 1.9 million times, but only 68 users have declared themselves as Covid positive, and it has sent only 14 risky-contact notifications.
Bloomberg.com
“Tener una opinión diferente sobre género o raza es comprar el pase al exilio. Cuestionar el evangelio de la identidad de género, preguntar en voz alta si realmente existe el privilegio blanco, negar la verdad del Fin de los Días predicho por el cambio climático, implica asumir un riesgo personal importante…”
Fragmento de una columna de Eleonora Urrutia.
Tiene razón Eleanora. Ya eso de Voltaire de “Podré no estar de acuerdo con lo que usted dice, pero defenderé hasta la muerte su derecho a decirlo” está pasado de moda. ¿No eran los jacobinos los adalides de la libertad de expresión? ¡Qué manera de virarse la tortilla!
Una cosa es tener opinión sobre una raza y otra cosa bien diferente es insultarles y adjudicarles todos los males del planeta
Ninguna raza ni grupo humano, ni blancos ni negros ni asiáticos, deben de tener privilegio algunos sobre los demás
Pedir libertad de expresión para insultar otras razas para fomentar el odio contra ellas es deleznable y asqueroso
Yes, we would all be safer at home. If you had the ability to ride out the pandemic, however long it took, by staying home, growing and cooking your own food, ordering nothing off the internet, and avoiding contact with anyone except those who had chosen to isolate themselves with you, you could be 100 percent guaranteed not to be infected with coronavirus. You would also be guaranteed not to die in a car accident, an occurrence whose lifetime risk is 1 in 100 for people who live in this country. And yet most of us drive every day.
Responsible people take risks all the time in the course of normal life. And as responsible people, out of regard for ourselves and for others, we take steps to mitigate those risks. We drive, but wear seat belts; we bike to work, but wear helmets; we drink alcohol, but don’t get behind the wheel of a car right afterward; we have swimming pools in our yards, but have fences around them. So can we return to some semblance of normal, but do it without endangering ourselves or others?
For every activity I think about going back to, I consider the opportunity costs. For example, just as Virginia began to ease restrictions, a local sports club reopened its outdoor tennis courts. I called a friend and we played tennis for an hour. We were well over 6 feet apart, and although we obviously had indirect contact through the balls, we were careful not to touch our faces and we washed our hands afterward. It felt safe, and also exhilarating. Did I absolutely need to play tennis? Of course not. Was it terribly risky? Probably not. Did it make me happy? Undoubtedly, it did. And we are all in need of a little happiness right now.
The value of a life is not just in the simple act of living it, but in how you do so. I know that people want to be safe and healthy but that they also want art, and laughter, and music, and bourbon—to create them and to consume them. Not everyone can do those things in lockdown, but if you can, how do you decide?
There are three things that enter my calculus for what I should and shouldn’t do right now. The first: Am I putting anyone else at risk? For me, “anyone else” includes all my patients, so I feel acutely responsible for making sure I am safe. For many people, “anyone else” will be family members or close associates who are elderly or have other risk factors for getting very sick from Covid. I consider the downstream effects of increasing my risk on those whose well-being I am responsible for. Without this, being youngish (42) and with no chronic illnesses, I might be tempted to be more cavalier.
The risk to others is perhaps the most complicated to determine. When I think about visiting my parents, who are in their 70s, I worry about infecting them. And, of course, it would be safest to stay away. But I also worry about them feeling isolated, and the fact that they miss their grandchildren. So one weekend, just as Virginia began to lift restrictions and I had not worked a shift in the ER for five days, I drove my family up to see them, and we sat in their living room with masks and on their back porch without them. If case numbers climb where I work, I probably will feel less safe visiting them and will stay away. But if this drags on for years without a vaccine, I imagine I will then feel differently. They and I will weigh the risk of them getting Covid and dying, against the sorrow of missing their grandchildren growing up, and perhaps we will all decide the risk is worth it.
Because I consider myself a possible risk to others because of my job, I might not invite friends over for dinner inside my house right now. But I might consider grilling in the backyard, with people I trust to wear masks in public, wash their hands, and realize that the coronavirus really is a threat. This is a time to reflect upon the company we keep. If we gave freely of ourselves in the pre-Covid era, perhaps it is time to consider just how important any given person is in our lives. Some people we were friendly with before just might not make the cut. There is legitimate value right now in keeping one’s social circle a little bit smaller.
A second consideration is the risk of the activity I want to partake in against its importance to me. And although some of the things I would like to do could be categorized as frivolous, I intend to do them anyway. Friends have asked me: Are pedicures safe? Perhaps they are, and so may be spa visits and haircuts; weeks after two Missouri hairstylists exposed more than a hundred customers to Covid because they worked while sick, no customer has yet tested positive at the time of writing. If this remains true, it suggests that close quarters with masks, which the two stylists were both wearing, might be OK. While none of these activities are essential, they are things many of us are longing to do. And what we have learned is that there are real ways to make them safer: physical distancing, masks, and good working conditions for employees.
If you don’t long to do something, then maybe holding off on doing it for now is the best option. For example, there is no dearth of movies on Netflix I haven’t seen, so going to see a new release in a theater holds no fascination for me. But if everyone is 6 feet apart at the movies and wearing masks, armchair movie critics might choose to make this their first pandemic outing. Similarly, if I couldn’t drive to see close family, I might consider getting on a plane but would wear a mask and bleach-wipe my surroundings. Each of us will decide, with a certain degree of arbitrariness, what we consider safe and important. But I wouldn’t go to a crowded bar, or a pool party where no one was wearing a mask, no matter how much I wanted to. That would clearly just not be safe right now.
It’s not just the frivolous that concerns me. As the days with Covid march on, some of the things we have been avoiding will become necessary. Adults will need to go back to work, and we’ll need to send our children to school and day care. How will we learn how, and teach our children how, to be safe in those settings? The CDC has published mitigation strategies for schools and businesses, and we will want to know that our employers and school districts are taking them seriously. While there is data that suggests children aren’t a huge source of transmission, we really won’t know how safe school is until we have tried it. I intend to send my children back as soon as schools are open, but I imagine there will be some parents who won’t want to.
Until that long-awaited back-to-school day arrives, I’ll try to ingrain Covid safety in my kids. They now always wash their hands for 20 seconds and leave their shoes by the door, and they are learning to be comfortable in masks. And for us adults, the skills we acquire in our occasional forays into the world will serve us well when work in an office is a regular occurrence again; not touching our faces, and sanitizing obsessively, will have to become second nature. We’ve already contended with decisions about something that is morally necessary: protesting. People have done integrated strategies to mitigate their risk of Covid even as they march and kneel in the streets.
0703_lw2
The most complicated risks to gauge are the ones we may pose to others.
My last consideration as I weigh how I will go back to normal life is not about my risk of getting Covid—it’s about the risk I pose to the broader world. Carbon emissions across the world are down 17 percent. Skies are clearer. Previously obscured mountains are visible. Snow leopards are being spotted where they have never been seen before. The pandemic has given us a glimpse of a dire future but also one of a better Earth that may actually be attainable. Now that we know we can go a few months without doing certain things, why not go without them forever? So I will also ask myself, Will this activity allow me to tread lightly upon the Earth, and if it doesn’t, do I really need to do it? That’s one thing I’ve taken away from this time apart—you might have had your own realization of what you’d like to pay more attention to in your life.
Once I decide to do something, I set myself assiduously to the task of making it as safe as possible. As evidence accumulates in favor of masks, there really is no excuse for not wearing them. Using hand sanitizer before and after activities seems prudent. Keeping a 6-foot distance from others when possible should be easy. An event with 10 people is safer than one with 20. Having your best friend over for cocktails in the backyard is probably fine; having the guy you just met on Tinder over to snuggle on the couch probably isn’t. We might ask what businesses are doing to keep us and their employees safe, and choose the ones that are following the rules. Our local gelato place recently reopened; they sanitized my credit card before handing it back to me, and both employees in the store washed their hands after serving us. I can’t wait to go back.
It will be a little while before we know exactly how dangerous certain things are, so it makes sense to start with baby steps and for those baby steps to be the things we really care about, things that don’t make us feel like we are teetering on the Covid precipice. As we navigate how to live with Covid in our lives, we will misstep, in either direction, as we walk the fine line between safety and freedom. I felt a little frisson of anxiety as I bit into the manchego a friend served me on her porch. Was it OK to do that? I still don’t really know, and that uncertainty is something we will have to learn to live with, too.
There’s a lot of shaming on the internet of people who want to go out and do things, and this makes us question our desire to do so. Yes, we all want to survive this pandemic. But we also need to learn to live with Covid around us and take steps to protect ourselves and our communities. Ultimately, most of the risks we will all take won’t be about pedicures, or haircuts, or eating at a steak house. They will be about seeing the people we love, being with the people who sustain us, interacting in a way that makes us feel human. While love can be expressed in an email, on a computer screen, in a phone call, those digital forms of communication are no substitute for sharing the same physical space with another person, even if the words are the same. And wanting that closeness does not make you a bad person. Just wear a mask when you do it.
This article originally appeared in Slate.com.
Claro ejemplo de q cada uno es un planeta.
Yo nunca he pensado en 3 meses en ir a un salón
De cuidado personal, pero hace 3 dias pasé x uno
Y estaban como 5 clientes y 3 barberos
En un espacio cerrado de 3×6 metros. Jamás entraria
Yo a un lugar así hoy.
Voy a lugares más espaciosos, con más claridad,
Menos sustancias dispersas, techos altos,
cdo hay desconocidos, y en los lugares mas
Pequeños limitamos a menos de 10 los presentes y usamos
Máscaras cdo ellos están en nuestra habitación.
Hemos descubierto que no tenemos que gastar
Dos mil cada semana para estar bien, con mil se pasa:
Este ha sido el mayor descubrimiento en los
Últimos 13 años, y nos habrá cambiado para siempre,
Para bien.
Eleonora Urrutia compara el proceso actual con la revolución cultural de Mao. Es largo pero el trabajo es muy bueno, esta en El Libero. Es un punto interesante el que sostiene, para mi es solo moda (querer ser importante). Saludos.
LAST month, UK prime minister Boris Johnson said England would have a “world-beating” contact-tracing system in June. But as non-essential shops began reopening in England, the past week has seen two major blows to contact-tracing efforts there.
First, the UK government ditched an overdue National Health Service app designed to automatically detect possible instances of virus transmission between people, after a trial on the Isle of Wight found its use of Bluetooth failed to detect many iPhones running the app. The app was originally due to be rolled out across the UK in May.
The UK government will now pivot instead to build a new app relying on software that will be baked into Google and Apple’s mobile operating systems, it was announced on 18 June – an approach being pursued by many other countries. The app is unlikely to launch until winter, UK ministers indicated.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are pursuing their own apps. In the current absence of such apps, the UK’s tens of thousands of human contact tracers have been attempting to break the virus’s chain of transmission. However, new figures show that England’s Test and Trace scheme, the biggest of the UK’s four nations, is still failing to contact around a quarter of people testing positive.
During the scheme’s second week, from 4 to 10 June, only 73 per cent of the 5949 people who tested positive were successfully contacted, a similar proportion to the launch week. Initial contact is key to establishing the person’s recent close contacts. Similar contact-tracing operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aren’t yet publishing comparable statistics.
England’s scheme hasn’t yet released data on its speed of operation, from the point at which someone orders a test to when their close contacts are told to self‑isolate. A quick turnaround is vital to contain the virus’s spread.
One contact tracer for the scheme told New Scientist that they were typically phoning people to tell them they had tested positive around three days after the person first developed symptoms and ordered a test.
Newly published minutes show that the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) said a month ago that the contact-tracing operation “could very rapidly become overwhelmed” if there were still high numbers of new covid-19 infections. At the time, there were around 10,000 new cases across the UK a day. In the past week, the UK government has been reporting around 1000 to 1300 confirmed cases a day.
“Only 73 per cent of people who tested positive in England were successfully contacted”
The reproduction number – the average number of other people one infected person passes the virus on to – for the UK is at 0.7 to 0.9, while its infection growth rate appears to be at -2 to -4 per cent. Both these estimates suggest the outbreak is slowly declining. But there have been signs of isolated local outbreaks, such as at a meat plant in Anglesey, Wales, raising the prospect of a local lockdown by authorities.
Nevertheless, most indicators of the virus’s prevalence are showing a decline. Figures last week from an ongoing Office for National Statistics study suggest that an estimated average of 33,000 people, excluding those in care homes and hospitals, in England had covid‑19 in the first two weeks of June, down from 149,000 in the first two weeks of May.
On Tuesday, Johnson announced that the 2-metre social distancing rule would be reduced to 1 metre in England from 4 July, in situations where other safety measures are in place. Without such measures, evidence considered by SAGE suggests that the shorter distance carries between two and 10 times the risk of transmission.
Daily coronavirus news round-up
Online every weekday at 6pm BST newscientist.com/coronavirus-latest ■
corona, como todos ven, no cree en ciclos hasta ahora.
Las actividades al aire libre con distancia física
Son las ideales, pero ¿quien le dice a un habitante
De estas temperaturas entre 30 y 40c° que coma
o se corte el pelo en establecimientos, bajo el sol?
Quizá muchos asiáticos y africanos, el resto vamos
Por el espacio climatizado, pequeño y la palabrería
Y el toca toca sin aseo adecuado.
DEXAMETHASONE has become the first drug shown to lower the death rate from covid-19. The discovery of the benefits of this widely available steroid, which damps down an overactive immune system, was seen as a much-needed piece of good news. But we will need lots of other treatments to help us turn the tide of severe covid-19.
Le pregunto Ramiro. Es posible que Fernández sea tan estúpido como aparenta serlo? Me cuesta ya sintonizar con la “lógica argentina”, pero quién gobierna ahora. Los sindicatos con Cristina?
Continúa la locura.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiHDTPkP_NY&feature=emb_logo
Los vídeos de esas cámaras deben prohibirse por racistas, y demandarse a esa tienda por haber entregado la copia.
Difundir una agresión no tiene nada de racista.
Los vídeos que prueban un delito nunca deberían de prohibirse, cuando hay una agresión el que agrede sea del color de piel que sea debe de pagar una sanción (cárcel o multa)
Pero fomentan el racismo, señor Gonzalo.
Fomentan en racismo solo en personas tan estúpidas como usted que se pasan el día hablando mal de negros y judíos por los vídeos que ven, a las personas inteligente no nos fomenta racismo ver una pelea entre dos personas de distinto color, gracias a nuestra inteligencia sabemos que lo que hace en un vídeo una persona de un color de piel no tienen que hacerlo las demás de su mismo color de piel.
Es Moyano el que manda, nocierto che. Al menos es el tránsfuga con más plata y logística.
Tengo la sospecha de que el pobre Sapucay no sabe ni quién manda en la Argentina.
La corrupción es el gran mal del mundo. Si el político es honrado, sea de izquierdas o de derechas, el país ira bien.
De qué región de España es usted. Gonzalo.
Su formación la encuentro autodidacta, semejante a la de nuestro colaborador “Razonvsintinto”.
Si no es mucho preguntar, cuál es su edad y a qué se dedica?
Y usted Víctor López ¿donde se formo? me supongo que en un grupo neonazi, de ahí ha bebido todo su odio racista.
Mi forma de pensar en gran parte es mía, me la he formado yo viendo el mundo que he visto.
Su formación no se si sera autodidacta, sospecho que mucha formación no tiene vista la falta de inteligencia y odio en sus argumentos, lo que no sospecho es que le falta ver mucho mundo para quitarse esos prejuicios que tiene de la gente por ser de un color de piel o de cierto sitio.
Igualmente que importara mi edad y mi trabajo, en un argumento da igual la edad o el trabajo, también tiene prejuicios contra ciertas edades y trabajos, usted hubiese sido un genial agente de la Gestapo nazi, haciendo perfiles hubiese sido merecedor de una medalla de plata nazi.
¿Que importa de que región española sea?
¿tan estúpido es usted como para adjudicarme un comportamiento dependiendo de donde sea?
Que triste, vaya al psiquiatra a que le revise ese odio que tiene a las personas de ciertos lugares.
Bien dicho.