Podcasts about in covid

Interviewer: MATTHEW ROTH. When the Sars-CoV-2 spread across the world in the spring of 2020, it triggered unprecedented lockdowns in nearly every country, including democracies where such drastic measures were previously considered unlikely to be feasible. The hope was that the virus could be stopped and eventually eliminated, and that deaths could be minimized in the meantime. In their new book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, political scientists FRANCES LEE and STEPHEN MACEDO examine the sequence of decisions that led to these policies and conclude that not only did they not work as envisioned, but that the decision-making process itself was deeply flawed. In their conversation with historian Matthew Roth, the authors describe the pre-existing consensus among health officials, that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) would likely be counterproductive; how that consensus quickly flipped during the crisis, after which open debate was stifled; the political polarization that led to different measures in different U.S. states; and the reasons why the comparative, pre-vaccine mortality data from the states show no sign of that a more stringent approach helped. 

Three and a half years ago, during the pandemic era, we launched Lean Out to explore some basic questions about illiberalism in our response to the crisis — and in our culture, our politics, and our newsrooms. Today, for our 200th episode of the show, we're thrilled to be joined by two academics who have written a deeply researched book that provides some answers.Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. And Frances Lee is professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. Their new book is In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.You can find Tara Henley on Twitter at @TaraRHenley, and on Substack at tarahenley.substack.com

Frances E. Lee is professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. In addition to In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, she is author or coauthor most recently of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era and Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. His books, in addition to In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, and Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk, Frances Lee, and Stephen Macedo discuss school closures during COVID, why Republicans and Democrats reacted differently to the pandemic, why institutions failed, and why as a consequence institutions lost the public's trust. Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Frances Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. We delved into the political landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how our democratic systems struggled to cope with the crisis. Dr. Lee shared insights from her book "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," co-authored with Stephen Macedo. We discussed the concept of moralized antagonism and how it hindered productive dialogue during the pandemic. Dr. Lee highlighted the importance of leaders acknowledging uncertainty and avoiding the temptation to pretend they have all the answers. We also touched on the failures of federalism in the US, where partisan divides prevented effective policy learning across states. The conversation explored the broader implications for democracy, including concerns about free speech and the suppression of dissent. Dr. Lee emphasized the need for citizens and leaders alike to resist moralized antagonism and engage with diverse perspectives. Overall, our discussion provided a thoughtful examination of the pandemic's impact on democratic processes and the challenges we face moving forward.

Abdul and Katelyn discuss the latest news in health and policy, including: Trump's proposal to increase the birth rate by giving women $5000 baby bonuses The political divide over measles Why RFK Jr is being asked to testify at the Senate HELP committee in May The closure of nine schools in Milwaukee due to lead contamination Then Abdul and Katelyn talk to Princeton political science professors Dr. Frances Lee and Dr. Stephen Macedo about their new book “In Covid's Wake.” Check out our shop at store.americadissected.com for our new America Dissected merch – including logo shirts, hoodies and mugs. And don't miss our “Vaccines Matter. Science Works.” t-shirts! This show would not be possible without the generous support of our sponsors. America Dissected invites you to check them out. This episode was brought to you by: de Beaumont Foundation: For 25 years, the de Beaumont Foundation has worked to create practical solutions that improve the health of communities across the country. To learn more, visit debeaumont.org.  Ground News: Go to groundnews.com/AD today to get forty percent off the Ground News Vantage plan and get access to all of their news analysis features.  Our Big Shot: Search for and subscribe to “Our Big Shot: Wiping Out Disease” on Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast app.

There are lots of stories to tell about the Covid pandemic. Most of them, on some level, are about politics, about decisions that affected people's lives in different — and very unequal — ways. Covid hasn't disappeared, but the crisis has subsided. So do we have enough distance from it to reflect on what we got right, what we got wrong, and what we can do differently when the next crisis strikes? Professor Frances E. Lee — co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us — thinks we do. In this episode, she speaks with Sean about how our politics, our assumptions, and our biases affected decision-making and outcomes during the pandemic. Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling) Guest: Frances E. Lee, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton and co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us Listen to The Gray Area ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrances Lee is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton, and her books include The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Age. Steve Macedo —an old friend from Harvard — is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, and his books include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage. The book they just co-wrote is called In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.For two clips of our convo — on the demonization of dissent during Covid, and where the right went wrong on the pandemic — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Frances raised in the Deep South; Steve from a family of educators in Massachusetts; his Jesuit schooling as a gay Catholic; how both were natural contrarians; the pre-pandemic plans for Covid; their personal reactions to the outbreak; the emergency after 9/11; the Spanish flu; the cost/benefit of lockdowns; the different reactions in red and blue states; the Sweden model; the trillions of dollars in Covid relief; Fauci's appeal to authority; Partygate and Newsom's French Laundry; the remote work enjoyed by elites; how blue-collar workers bore the brunt; the generational injustice suffered by kids; Operation Warp Speed; the early myths of the vaccine; the Ptown vaccinated outbreak; censorship on social media; the moralizing of the MSM; the public-health hypocrisy on BLM protests; the mask mandates after the vaccines; how boosters weren't backed by good evidence; the Great Barrington Declaration; the Ebright testimony; the “Proximal Origin” paper; gain of function and the short-lived moratorium; the illiberal mistakes of Francis Collins; addressing his claims on lab leak; and the alarming current risks of viral escape.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Byron York on Trump 2.0, Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Liberals have been introspecting (some may say self-flagellating) since the 2024 election, to varying degrees of convincingness and success. There's the usual genre of complaints—NIMBYism, identity politics, the crisis of masculinity, forgetting about the factory man—but the one thing liberals agree on is that they can't be blamed for following their good, apolitical science. Today's guests want you to rethink that. We're thrilled to have on Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, and Stephen Macedo, Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values, both at Princeton University, to discuss their new book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.We open up the book by asking our guests why they wrote this book—why attack liberals' response to the COVID pandemic, and why now? Lee and Macedo argue that liberal science and policymaking early in the pandemic faced multiple epistemic failures, from undisclosed conflicts of interest to the silencing of opinions outside the mainstream. David defends the United States's COVID policy response, but Lee and Macedo press their point that value-laden judgments were made by state and local officials who avoided responsibility by claiming to follow the science. We wrap up the episode with a discussion of scientific expertise in modern democracies.This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced ReadingsGreat Barrington Declaration“Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?” by Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya“What Sparked the COVID Pandemic? Mounting Evidence Points to Raccoon Dogs” by Smriti Mallapaty“Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19” by Charles Calisher et al.“Everyone Wore Masks During the 1918 Flu Pandemic. They Were Useless.” by Eliza McGraw“The Covid Alarmists Were Closer to the Truth Than Anyone Else” by David Wallace-WellsThe Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease by Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Fineberg

The authors of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, join for a full-show interview to discuss our failures during the pandemic. The evidence shows pharmaceutical interventions did nothing, but the tradeoff was trillions of dollars in deficit spending, lost learning and solitary deathbeds. Plus, Pete Hegseth may be leaking more than leadership; after his second round of Signal-based scheming, the veteran Fox-man-turned-defense-secretary is reportedly on the chopping block. Produced by Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: GIST INSTAGRAM Follow The Gist List at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrancis is a physician and geneticist whose work has led to the discovery of the cause of cystic fibrosis, among other diseases. In 1993 he was appointed director of the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced all three billion letters of our DNA. He went on to serve three presidents as the director of the National Institutes of Health. The author of many books, including The Language of God, his latest is The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.Our conversation was entirely agreeable until we talked about trust, and his own handling of the Covid epidemic. I asked him in depth about the lab-leak theory and why he and Tony Fauci passionately dismissed it from the get-go, even as it now appears to be the likeliest source of the terrible virus. Things got intense.For two clips of our convo — intense debate on the “Proximal Origin” paper outright denying a lab leak as the source of Covid-19, and Francis finding God after decades of atheism — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up on a rustic farm in Shenandoah; his parents creating a community theater; homeschooled until 6th grade; his amazing scientific accomplishments as a young adult; his scientism; his terminally ill Christian patients; the AIDS crisis; C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity; the First Mover question; Ross Douthat and “fine-tuning”; the multiverse; the limits to the materialist view; deism; cradle believers vs converts; evolution and sacrificial altruism; Socrates; Jesus dying for our sins; the doubting Thomas; how angels manifest; Francis Bacon; Richard Dawkins; being the NIH director during Covid; trust and mistrust in science; the early confusion in pandemics; tribalism; dismal safety standards at the Wuhan lab; gain-of-function; EcoHealth and Peter Daszak; intel agencies on lab leak; furin cleavage sites; Kristian Andersen; geopolitical fears over Trump and China; the opacity of the CCP; the Great Barrington Declaration; Trump threatening science funding at the Ivies; In Covid's Wake; and if Francis has any regrets after Covid.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Byron York on Trump 2.0, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Today on Rising, Robby delivers a monologue on a CNN poll that shows President Trump is winning massively on a key question: "Which party do you think cares more about the needs of people like you?" Man arrested after alleged arson attack at Gov. Josh Shapiro's (D-Penn.) official residence. Republicans push back on the rule mandating Real ID to fly within the U.S. "Real Time With Bill Maher" host Bill Maher recounts his dinner experience with President Trump. Robby and Bofta react to an episode from "The Joe Rogan Experience" that featured political commentator Douglas Murray and comedian Dave Smith. Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein explains how Americans have been kept in dark about the U.S. amassing and moving B-2 bombers closer to Iran. Stephen Macedo, professor at Princeton University, talks about his new book, "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us". Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a surprise visit at Coachella over the weekend. All this and more. #Rising Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In their most urgent and emotionally charged episode yet, Dr. Jonathan Howard and science journalist Wendy Orent confront the accelerating unraveling of public health institutions in the United States under the RFK Jr. administration. They open with a flood of disturbing headlines: Peter Marks, the nation's top vaccine expert, has been ousted. Measles is surging in Texas, and children are arriving at hospitals with liver failure after being treated with toxic vitamin A overdoses—recommended by RFK-aligned influencers. The CDC and NIH are being gutted: funding pulled, scientists fired, and research into vaccine hesitancy and mRNA technology halted. David Geier, a disgraced figure with a history of chemically castrating autistic children, has been tapped to lead a new federal vaccine safety study. Howard and Orent don't hold back. They rip into this dystopian reversal of public health, where disinformation peddlers are now calling the shots. They highlight the sheer absurdity and danger of putting figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas, and Geier in positions of power—people who have spent years sowing distrust in vaccines, downplaying COVID, and demonizing public health measures. The episode draws a brutal contrast between the lived reality of frontline doctors and essential workers—many of whom died in early pandemic waves—and the self-styled martyrs of the anti-lockdown movement, who now paint themselves as victims. One particularly enraging example: Bhattacharya's claim that he felt “unsafe” on Stanford's campus after a flyer was posted with his own quote alongside Florida's Delta wave death tolls. This, while over 20,000 Floridians died in that wave, many unvaccinated due to the policies he championed. A major target of their critique is the book In COVID's Wake, which they say rewrites history by glorifying the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring the real human toll of their misinformation. Orent and Howard dismantle the book's central claim—that these anti-lockdown figures were treated unfairly—pointing out that many of them became media darlings, got promoted, or were appointed to powerful roles. Meanwhile, real scientists and doctors who fought on the frontlines were ignored, censured, or worse. They also expose the cynical “woke-washing” by these same figures—claiming to champion the poor and marginalized while promoting policies that left essential workers unprotected. Their concern for “equity,” Howard and Orent argue, was nothing more than rhetorical cover for libertarian, laissez-faire ideology. As the episode barrels toward its conclusion, one message becomes chillingly clear: We are watching the active dismantling of public health—science silenced, disinformation rewarded, and truth replaced by ideology. And as Dr. Howard puts it: “If we had predicted these headlines six months ago, we would've sounded insane. But now, they're reality.” This episode is a searing call to action. For scientists. For journalists. For anyone who still believes in truth, public health, and protecting the vulnerable. Because as Orent warns: “The wild horses of the plague apocalypse are descending... and the party's just beginning.”   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Five years ago, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a pandemic. That launched widespread shutdowns, mandates for masks and vaccines and caused enormous social and economic harms. William Brangham spoke with the authors of "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," a new book that’s sharply critical of how America responded to this crisis. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

This episode critically examines In COVID's Wake by Princeton professors Steven M. and Francis Lee, focusing on their defense of the Great Barrington Declaration. Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent argue that the authors downplay the catastrophic errors of the GBD architects, who pushed for herd immunity through mass infection while opposing vaccines, masks, and lockdowns.  The discussion highlights the disconnection between political science theorizing and real-world public health outcomes. Using Florida as a case study, they showcase the tragic failures of the GBD's approach, debunking the revisionist portrayal of its policies as reasonable or compassionate. The episode underscores the importance of accurately remembering the pandemic's scientific realities and human costs. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Guest: Stephen Macedo, co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.

Stephen Macedo, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Macedo's new book, "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us."

Five years ago, at the urging of federal officials, much of the United States locked down to stop the spread of Covid. Over time, the action polarized the country and changed the relationship between many Americans and their government.Michael Barbaro speaks to Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, two prominent political scientists who dispute the effectiveness of the lockdowns, to find out what they think will be required when the next pandemic strikes.Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.Guest: Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, authors of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed UsBackground reading: As the coronavirus spread, researchers worldwide scrambled to find ways to keep people safe. Some efforts were misguided. Others saved millions of lives.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Hilary Swift for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean […]

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, […]

Hello!Today we talk with the authors of “In Covid's Wake: How our Politics Failed Us” by Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee. We talk about what we got wrong during the pandemic, how to battle groupthink, especially when it comes to science, and why so many people were willing to accept one version of public health without proper debate or questioning. This was an informative and thought-provoking episode, one that made us rethink a lot of what we knew about what was happening in the early months of 2020. Thanks! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden, and the mainstream media struggles to cover for the corrupt Biden regime. In COVID news, the source of the virus is what we thought it was. Trump jokingly suggests annexing Canada. And we continue our daily prize giveaways as we count down the 12 (Working) Days of Christmas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden, and the mainstream media struggles to cover for the corrupt Biden regime. In COVID news, the source of the virus is what we thought it was. Trump jokingly suggests annexing Canada. And we continue our daily prize giveaways as we count down the 12 (Working) Days of Christmas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The winter solstice was on June 20 and 21. The longest night and the shortest day, but wisdom tells us that the depths of winter does not fall until 6 weeks after the solstice. It takes a while for actions to provoke a reaction. So right now is the depths of winter and much is at the worst it has ever been and ever will be. The All Blacks lost. In front of a disappointing crowd. Many are saying the poor crowd was down to economic hardship in the capital as the Government wages war on the size of the public service. The public service in Wellington is being slashed to cut the government spending to help the economy. However, this is all happening just as the Reserve Bank tries to fix their Covid mistake. We're in a double squeeze.   In Covid, the Reserve Bank underestimated how well we'd operate under Covid lockdowns. With the benefit of hindsight, we know they splashed too much virtually free money. So now they have to strangle our economy after setting it on fire. It's debatable whether we needed a double squeeze. But here we are. Whipping ourselves big time for future good. Meanwhile, the country is low on power. A dry winter and our gas reserves running out means that energy-dependent industries are finding it hard to make a buck and some are now on hiatus.   Reality check. We need gas. A fossil fuel and we have no alternative. Labour had a policy but no alternative. But another reality check. From the discovery of gas to coming online takes at least 10 years, so today's shortage is on previous governments and gas companies. No matter what Simeon Brown says. We're still low on health workers and the cuts on government spending suggest we're not really going to splash cash on them. We're still importing 100,000 people every year and not increasing contingencies to cope with their demands, like housing and health. But we're more than happy to count whatever money they contribute to the economy. In John Key's years, they were called our rock star economy. To add to all of that we have one of the most negative governments I can remember who seem to enjoy telling us how bad we are and to blame it all on the past 6 years when the rot set in 30 years ago. They've followed a government that told us we had 9 years of neglect. No wonder we have a generation wanting to leave. Government after government promising the world and making no difference and telling us how rubbish we are. But then we watch our Olympians and their work ethic and we feel good. Then we discover that all regions are having an economic recovery. Except for Wellington for obvious reasons. And we have an OCR statement later this week. Could it be the long winter of discontent is finally over and we have green shoots and a good spring to come? New Zealand is where I want to be. We're not the cot case the Government portrays. We do need to rediscover our mojo. We need to stop saying no to good ideas. We need better public transport, we need more houses, we need more gas. We need to look after ourselves.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ethical considerations are essential in genomic medicine and clinical practice. In this episode, our guests dive into the details of ethical principles, highlighting how they can be brought into practice in the clinic, whilst considering the experiences and feelings of patients and participants. Our host, Dr Natalie Banner, Director of Ethics at Genomics England, speaks to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli. Jonathan is the Chair of the Genomics England Ethics Advisory Committee, and a Professor of Health Care Law at University College London. Latha is a member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel at Genomics England, and is a Consultant Community Paediatrician working with children with complex needs.   "You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things."   You can read the transcript below or download it here: https://files.genomicsengland.co.uk/documents/Podcast-transcripts/Why-are-ethical-considerations-crucial-in-genomics-research-and-clinical-practice.docx Natalie: Welcome to Behind the Genes.   Jonathan: The first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes all focus is around the patient individually, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions. Families differ enormously, some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approaches to  genomic issues must respect everybody in that.  Natalie: My name is Natalie Banner and I'm the Director of Ethics here at Genomics England. On today's episode, I'm joined by Chair of our Ethics Advisory Committee, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel, who's also a community paediatrician working with children with complex needs.  Today we'll be discussing why ethical considerations are crucial in genomics research and clinical practice and what consent means in the context of genomics. If you enjoy today's episode, we'd love your support. Please like, share and rate us wherever you listen to your podcasts.  At Genomics England, we have an Ethics Advisory Committee, which exists to promote a strong ethical foundation for all of our programmes, our processes, and our partnerships. This can mean things like acting as a critical friend, an external group of experts to consult. It can mean ensuring Genomics England is being reflective and responsive to emerging ethical questions, especially those that arise as we work with this really complex technology of genomics that sits right at the intersection of clinical care and advancing research. And it can also ensure that we are bringing participant voices to the fore in all of the work that we're doing.   I'm really delighted today to welcome two of our esteemed members of the ethics advisory committee to the podcast. Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, our Chair, and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of our Participant Panel. So, Jonathan, if I could start with you, could you tell us a little bit about your background and what you see as the role of the ethics advisory committee for us at Genomics England?  Jonathan: Thanks very much, Natalie. My background professionally is I'm an academic, I'm a professor at University College London, and I profess healthcare law the subject that I've sort of had technical skills in. But I've also spent many years involved in the governance of the National Health Service, so I currently chair the board of the Oxford University Hospital's NHS Foundation Trust.   I've spent quite a lot of time on bodies trying to take sensible decisions on behalf of the public around difficult ethical issues. The most relevant one to Genomics England is I chaired the Human Genetics Commission for three years which was a really interesting group of people from many backgrounds. The commission itself primarily combined academics in ethics, law and in clinical areas, and there was a separate panel of citizens think grappling with things that are really important. Genomics England has a bit of that pattern, but it's really important that the ethics advisory committee brings people together to do that. You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things. My aim as Chair of the advisory committee is essentially to try and reassure myself that we've heard all the things that we need to hear and we've had a chance to discuss with each other as equals what it is that that leads us to think, and then to think about how to advise within Genomics England or other people on what we've learnt from those processes.  Natalie: Fantastic. Thank you, Jonathan. And as you mentioned, the necessity of multiple different perspectives, this brings me to Latha. You have lots of different hats that you bring to the Ethics Advisory Committee, could you tell us a little bit about those?  Latha: Thank you, Natalie, for that introduction. I'm Latha Chandramouli, I'm a Consultant Community Paediatrician and I'm based in Bristol employed by Siron Care & Health. I'm a parent of twins and from my personal journey, which is how I got involved, my twins are now 21 so doing alright, we had a very, very stormy difficult time when they were growing up with our daughter having epilepsy, which just seemed to happen quite out of the blue sometimes. It started to increase in frequency the year of GCSE, to the point that she would just fall anywhere with no warnings and hurt herself. This was difficult for me because as a clinician, I was also treating patients with epilepsy. I also was looking at the journeys of other people and was able to resonate with the anxiety as a parent. Worry about sudden death in epilepsy, for example, at night, these were the kind of difficult conversations I was having with parents, and I was now on the other side of the consultation table.  I was also doing neurology in those jobs in a unit where there was epilepsy surgery happening, so it was, in very simple terms, very close to home. It was quite hard to process, but equally my job I felt was I should not separate myself as a parent but also as a clinician because I had information, I had knowledge, and we had conversations with my daughter's clinician.   We were then recruited into the 100,000 Genomes Project which had just started, so we were just a year after it had started. That was an interesting experience. We were in a tertiary centre with a lovely clinical geneticist team, we had the metabolic team, we had loads of teams involved in our daughter's care. We could understand as a clinician, but there was also my husband, although a clinician, not into paediatrics and was in a different field. It was important that it was the whole family getting recruited into the journey. My daughter also was quite young, so obviously we have parenting responsibility, but we were very keen to make sure they knew exactly what they were getting into in terms of the long-term issues. Despite being informed, at times there were things that we went in with without understanding the full implications because life happens in that odyssey.   I think that was my biggest learning from those exercises when I began to question certain other things because I then had a breast cancer journey, but obviously I was not recruited as part of that process for the 100k. Those were kind of some of the questions coming in my head, how does the dynamic information sharing happen, and that's how I got involved, found out a bit more about the participant panel, and that's how I got involved from 2018 which has been an interesting experience.   Firstly, I think with Genomics England they are probably one of the groups of organisations having a big panel of people, genuinely interested in wanting to make a difference and represent thousands of participants who have got their data saved in the research library, recruited under the two broad arms of cancer and rare disease. We were under the rare disease arm, although I could resonate with the cancer arm because of my own experience.  At various times there were lots of opportunities to think about how data is accessed, are we getting more diverse access to data, all those different issues. At various points we have been involved in asking those questions. We all have different skillsets, you see, in our group. Some have got information governance hats; some have got data hats and PR hats. I've got a clinical hat and a clinical educator hat. I am a paediatrician, so I have recruited people for the same, for the DDD, for CGH etc, and I've always gone through the principles of consenting, confidentiality, the ethics. I also work in a field, Natalie, where there is a huge, as you are aware with the NHS resource issues, there's huge gaps and waiting lists, so it's trying to make sense of what is the best thing to do for that patient or that family at that point in life. Are we obsessed by a diagnostic label? Are we going down a needs-based approach? It's having always those pragmatic decisions to be made. That's one of my clinical hats.  I also am an educator so I'm very keen that young medical students, be it nursing students, everybody understands genomics and they're signing up to it so that we can mainstream genomics. Those are some of my alternative hats which kind of kick in a bit.  Natalie: Fantastic, thank you, Latha. As you say, there are so many different perspectives there. You talk about kind of the role of the whole family as part of the journey. You talked about consent, confidentiality, data access issues, lots of questions of uncertainty. Perhaps, Jonathan, I can come to you first to talk a little bit about what is it about the ethical issues in genomics that may feel a little different. Are they unique or are they the same sorts of ethical issues that come across in other areas of clinical practice and research? Is there something particularly challenging in the area of genomics from an ethical perspective? Jonathan: Thanks, Natalie. I think all interesting ethical issues are challenging, but they're challenging in different ways. I'm always nervous about saying that it's unique to genomics because there are overlaps with other areas. But I do think there are some distinctive features about the challenges in genomics and I suppose I would say they probably fall in three groups of things that we should think about. The first you've touched on which is that information about our genomics is important not just for the individual person where you generate that data but it's important for their families as well. I think the first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes it all focuses around the patient individual, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions and families differ enormously. Some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approach is genomic issues must respect everybody in that, so I think that's the first difference.  I think the second difference is that the type of uncertainty involved in genomics extends much further than many other areas. We're talking about the impact on people's whole lives and it's not like a decision about a particular medication for a problem we have now or an operation. We're having to help people think about the impact it has on their sense of identity, on things that are going to happen sometime in the future.   And then thirdly, I think the level of uncertainty is different in genomics from other areas of medicine, and the particular thing I think is different that we have to work out how to address is that we can't really explain now all the things that are going to happen in the future, because we don't know. But we do know that as we research the area, we're going to find out more. So, what are our obligations to go back to people and say, “we worked with you before and you helped us out giving data into the studies. We couldn't tell you anything then that would be useful to you, but actually we can now.”. Now, that's different. That continuity sometimes talked about, you know, what are our obligations to recontact people after a study. You don't usually have those in the ethical areas we're familiar with; you're usually able to deal with things in a much more focused way.   I think those differences, that it's not just the individual, it's the family, that it's not just about a specific intervention but it's about an impact on people's lives and that we will need to think about what we had to do in the future as well as what we do immediately. They make it different in genomics. Some areas of healthcare have those as well, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has all of that in the same position.  Natalie: Latha, I'm wondering if that kind of resonates with your experience, particularly the navigating of uncertainty over time?  Latha: Yes. I would say that's exactly what you've said, Jonathan. I think it's the whole process of consenting with the view that you do not know much more beyond what you know about the situation here and now. Part of that is like any other situation, that's why we have evolved from I would say penicillin to the SMA gene therapy. If we did not do this, we wouldn't reach frontiers of medicine and kind of that's how I explained to families when I'm recruiting and I'm also very clear that it's not all about research but it's combination of the tool and focusing on your, but it's also helpful for research even if you do not get answers. I think it's very important at that stage, Natalie, that we have to be clear we may not get many answers at the very outset and also when do we really look at data, do we have that kind of realistic pragmatic resources to be able to relook every time? Is there a method of dynamically having that information from our NHS spine if somebody of the trio has contracted a condition, would that be fed in.   Those are the kind of questions parents and families ask. I cannot honestly answer that, and I often say that is optimal plan. If things go to plan, that will be the area we'd be heading towards, but currently I can't give you timelines. I think it's important we are honest at the outset and manage expectations. That's how you engage families and, in my case, it's more these children and families, so engaging is crucial. As you mentioned, it's also the question that gets asked is very simply in my mind, you know, sometimes there is that conflict because of my own personal recruitment to the 100k project, I have an interest in genomics and, therefore, I would be very keen to embark on that journey and I feel that is the way forward.   I also understand as a member of my clinical team, for example, where I know there's a huge waiting list, how am I best using the taxpayers' money that's been entrusted to us. If I think the waiting list is so high, can I see two further patients in that time that I'm using to consent which is not going to add much more to that child's journey, for example, with autism or ADHD. It's trying to be careful where is the ethics in doing an investigation, and that's like in any situation as a clinician. I think that's not much different, but it is kind of similar, but it opens up a huge area of uncertainty. As you would with any investigations, if you just went and did scans on everybody, you might pick things up which you don't need to do anything about. It's being sensible and being honest.  Jonathan: And for me, Latha, that raises two areas which I think are really interesting about genomics. The first of those is the language we've tended to use about consent I don't think captures all the ethical issues that we raise, because we've tended to think about consent of something that happens once and then gives people permission to do things. Whereas what you've described, and what we find ourselves often thinking about, is that we have to get a respectful relationship with people, so the consent is not to doing certain things, it's to agree to part of what I think about as a common enterprise. So, patients and families are partners with the clinicians and the researchers, and it's not that they sign a form and then the consent issue goes away, which is how lawyers tend to think about it, it's that we're starting something together and then we need to think about how do we keep the conversation going with mutual respect to make sure that everybody's values are there.   I think the second thing you picked up is a sense of the need for a better explanation of how research and care interact with each other. Because the care we get now is built on the evidence that people have contributed to in the past, so we're benefitting from our predecessors, and we want to contribute to our successors and our family getting better care in the future. I think one of the things about genomics is that the gap between those two things is really non-existent in genomics, whereas if you take a medicine, the research that's been done to make sure that medicine is safe and effective will have been done on a group of people some time in the past that I'll never meet, whereas in genomics I'm part of the production of that. I may get some benefit now, my friends or family may get some benefit, but there isn't this sort of separation between the care and the research bit that we're used to being able to think about. This is a much more mutual exercise and the stakes that we all have in it are therefore intertwined much more closely than they are in some areas of medicine.  Latha: I agree totally. In our case, for example, I went in in thinking we might get a targeted medication. I know there are certain levels of epilepsy medications anyway, so in principle it wouldn't have mattered a lot. However, it was important to know what the outcome was going to be because we had various labels, potential mitochondrial disease, potentially some susceptibility disorder, so we were on a spectrum from something very minimal to the other end on neurodegenerative situation. We were left dangling and we thought it would be good to embark on this journey, at least there'll be some outcome, some prognostic outcome, and more importantly we don't have any answers, but we actually can be a hopeful story for someone else in that same position, and I think that's how we've embarked on it. That's kind of my personal experience. But in just harking back to some of the ethical issues, it's again very clear educating the clinicians, as you said, it's that relationship; it's not just a piece of paper, it's that development of relationship with your families, some of whom have got very complex issues going on in their lives themselves. I work in a very, very deprived part of Bristol, which is the highest deprivation index, so they have got lots of intergenerational things going on, there is poverty, there is learning issues and crime, lots of things going on. You've got to time it right, what is important for this family here and now, and then work on it. There's also the other issue that we may not continue to remain their clinicians after recruiting. I think that's so important to recognise because the results might come back but you kind of discharge them and it may take a few years by the time the results come. How do you then cross that bridge if some unexpected results come, which then means contacting various other extended family members. I think that's the bit we all do because that's part of the journey we've embarked on, but it's also thinking is there someone else who's probably better placed, like a GP or a primary care person who's actually holding the entire family and not just one person, not just the adult who has been the index patient. It's just trying to think the ethics of it because it's all about engagement and being transparent with families.  Jonathan: I think you've put your finger on another element that's really important about the ethics. In the same way as in relation to the position of the individual patient, and we need to see them in families, which doesn't fit very easily with lots of the clinical ethics that we've been used to. It's also the case that a lot of the traditional clinical ethics has focused on the individual responsibilities of clinicians, whereas what you've just described is that we have to work out what the system's responsibilities are, because it may not be the same clinician who is enabling good ethical practice to be pursued. These are both ways in which our paradigm of ethics has to be expanded from other areas of medicine.  Latha: Yes, I agree. And the other bit I think we can probably reassure quite nicely is about the ethics about information governance and we as data custodians storing information, how do we give with great ethics and discussion the access to research and being mindful that it is again thinking along the same principles GMC kind of had about the good for the common good and using resources equitably, but again being sensible with equality issues that a single condition doesn't get forgotten. It's that right balance that whilst we are doing common good, we might have a condition which might have a treatable medication, but we have to focus on that as well as research. I think it's interwoven, all these ethical questions.  Jonathan: I completely agree, Latha. That interwoven bit is something where we need to be able to think through, “what is the role of Genomics England to improving that?”. I think we've got issues around the good stewardship of information which can't be left with an individual clinician, they can only do that effectively if the system supports them and their colleagues in doing that. But we've also got to be proactive, we've got to recognise the limitations of the system, so one of the really important initiatives from Genomics England is the Diverse Data initiative because we know that without aiming to solve the problem, we will get a skewed dataset and clinicians can't properly look after people. That tells us that the ethics in this area has to do more than avoid things going wrong, it also has to work out what it means to do things right, and what systems we have to put in place to do that. I think that's a particular example of a shift we need to do across our ethics around healthcare.   If speak to the sort of things that lawyers have got wrong around this in the past and some of our history, we focused a lot of our effort on stopping things going wrong. That has meant that we haven't spent as much time as we need to on thinking about how to make things go right, because stopping things going wrong is almost always too late. What we have to do if we're being proactive is work out how to set things up in a way that will make sure that the chances of it going wrong are quite small and the chances of doing good are much increased. I think that's one of the key challenges that we have in Genomics England and as an Ethics Advisory Committee. The things we've inherited tell us quite a lot about things that have gone wrong, but actually what we're trying to do is to get our heads around what could go right and how to make sure it does.  Latha: Also, you mentioned about Diverse Data, I think that's another important thing as we noticed in COVID as well. There were lots of disparities in the social model and the inequalities that have resulted in death, but also potentially HLA or epigenetic issues which could have contributed. We do have the COVID-19 genomic datasets, but it's again important to make sure that we don't perceive certain ethnic minority populations. Just not accessing or considering them to be hard to reach, I would say for them Genomics England is hard to reach. It's looking at it slightly differently and thinking, “how can we reach them? how do we maybe use community workers and maybe even clinicians?”, I think they've got the best trusting relationships with their clinicians and using them to recruit. As you say, even before things get more complicated, you recruit them earlier so that you'd go down the prevention route rather than the gone wrong route and then look for answers later.  Jonathan: Latha, I think you put your finger on something really challenging for a group like the Ethics Advisory Committee at Genomics England, which is that however hard we try to get a range of experiences and voices, that's not a substitute for getting out and hearing from people in real world situations. I think one of the things I've learnt over the years from my national health service work is that you cannot expect people to come to you, you need to go to them. In COVID when we were trying to understand why some groups were more reluctant to take up vaccines than others, there was no point in doing that sitting in your own places, you had to listen to people's concerns and understand why they were there. One of the things we're going to have to be able to do as the Ethics Advisory Committee is work out when we need to hear more from people outside of the Genomics England system, and I'm a great believer that if it's right that we need to go where people are, you have to try not to reinvent mechanisms to do that. You have to try and learn where are people already talking about it and go and listen to them there. Latha: Absolutely, yeah. I think they listen because I do work as a paediatrician with a safeguarding hat, and I think the same principles resonate in child death work. For example, simple messages about cot deaths, you would think that if a professional tells the same message to a parent or a carer it's better received if it's another family, a younger person, another layperson giving the same message. It comes back to who's more receptive. It could be a community worker. As you mentioned about vaccination, during the vaccination initiative I decided early on that I'm probably not going to do a lot because I'm not an intensivist, how do I do my bit in the pandemic. I decided to become a vaccinator and I thought with my ethnic minority hat on, if I went out there to the mass centres and actually vaccinated there or in mosques or wherever else, without even saying a word I'm giving the message, aren't I, that, look, I'm fearlessly coming and getting vaccinated and vaccinating others, so please come. I think that has helped to some extent, just trying to reach out. Other than saying these people are not reaching us, it's got to be the other way around.  [Break for advertisements]  Natalie: I'm really enjoying this conversation. In part because I think it highlights just how valuable it is to sort of think about ethics a little bit differently. Historically, and certainly I think within the research community, ethics can just be associated with consent. Consent is the ethics issue and if you solve for consent, then you don't have any other issues to think through. I think what this conversation is really highlighting is just how much broader the ethical considerations are. Beyond that, it's still very important that consent can be that sort of anchor point for communication and engagement, but it's not simply a one-off. And to be able to think through ethics not just in terms of risk or moving forward when things have gone wrong in the past, there is actually a really positive aspect to it which I think is critically important.   It's great to hear your thoughts about that different approach to ethics that I think does embed it much more in community thinking, in questions of equity; it's not just the individual. I want to follow-up by just asking where do you think the future lies in thinking about ethics both for Genomics England and the Ethics Advisory Committee, but in the space of genomic research and medicine more broadly, given that it sits in this kind of very interesting and quite complex space between research and care in the clinic.  Jonathan: I mentioned earlier in the conversation I think about this as a common enterprise that we have shared stakes in. Academic researchers have a stake in trying to build a better more robust evidence base, clinicians have a stake in being able to offer something to the people that they're looking after. Families have stakes not just in their own immediate care, but they worry about their siblings, they worry about their children, their grandchildren. There are also of course industrial players, so people trying to build a business out of making better medicines in the future. There are government players trying to use public resources more effectively. I think what we have to try to create is a mutual process where we recognise that everybody has overlapping but slightly different values that they're pursuing and trying to get out of it, and how can we make sure that we govern our work in a way that reflects all of those stakeholders and recognises the respect that's due to them. I think this is more like a sort of membership of a common project. And the problem with consent is it risks us saying you can be a member of this club but only if you accept the terms and conditions that the committee has decided is there. That's not going to be adequate going forward. I think we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are respected, that they feel they can place their trust in the system that we're designing. As an Ethics Advisory Committee, we have to ask ourselves what justifies us suggesting to people that this is trustworthy. We need to make sure we have good information governance that people are not going to expose themselves to breaches of privacy if they take part in this. But we also need to make sure that we don't waste people's efforts. If people are prepared to be part of the research project, we shouldn't have rules coming down on the data usage that say that we're going to reduce the value of that contribution by saying it can only be used for one project and can't be used for others, because actually that would not respect properly people's contribution to the process.   We need to ask ourselves not just about the protective element of trustworthiness but that element that says we will make sure that you get as much as we can design of the things that you think are important from this project. They won't be identical for each group, and they won't be identical within each group. Different family members of participants will have different balances, but they all have to believe that this is a good club to be part of and that they have been part of agreeing ways of working that they think will produce a better future that they want to be part of and that they want to be proud of saying we have helped create this future.  Latha: I kind of agree with all that you've said. I think it's most important not to forget because I'm also a participant, like my trio sample is there in the pipeline, and I know my data is sitting there. I also have trust that there is good information governance, the data is secure, so it's reinforcing that, but it's also being very honest that it's obviously the data is there, but we can't forget the person or the persons at the centre of it, so it's not just alphabets or sequences of alphabets, but it is that whole person, and that person represents a group of individuals, family members, different generations, and they have embarked on it. Even if they know they may not get hope they might provide hope for others. It's being therefore respectful. I think that is the first thing I think is the principle of it and if you respect. If you think it could be the same principle that we use in clinical practice, the friends and family test, because I've been on both sides of the consultation table, I think I've become a better doctor because I've been an anxious mum, and my anxieties were dismissed as being an anxious mum and I don't care. As far as my child is concerned, my anxiety was valid and so I would do everything to reach an outcome as to what's best for that person. It's made me a better doctor because I can see it from both the perspectives. Most of us are human beings, apart from AI technology looking at the dataset, so we all have conditions ourselves, we've got doctors with health conditions, we've got clinicians, academics, technicians, nurses everybody who's got a friend or a family member or themselves having a health condition. I think its fundamental principle is that friends and family test. How would I like my data stored? How would I like my data analysed? Could it do this, could it give me some information on how I would get cured or treated or be managed? How would it affect my insurance, or will it find out data about who's the father of this child, for example? It's being honest and being honest about the uncertainties as well.   When I'm recruiting, I'm very clear that these are what I know that I can tell you about the risks. But then there may be other risks that I do not know about. If you're honest about it and acknowledge what is the limit of the knowledge of science at this point in time, because you said there are so many stakeholders, there are researchers and academics who've got interest in some areas, it could have developed because of a family member having that problem, but whatever it is that is a great interest because that intelligent mind is thinking ahead and we need to encourage that. It could be for writing up papers, it doesn't matter. Whatever be the reason, if it's for the common good, that's fine. It's also thinking how are we keeping our families in the loop, so you have newborns, you've got young people sometimes with significant disabilities so they are relying on a parent or a carer to consent for them, but some are not so disabled but they have needs, they've got rare conditions, but they can make their consenting issues known when they turn 16, for example. It's the changing policies and they can withdraw at some point in life or there may be a member of the family who doesn't want to be part of that journey anymore. It's allowing that to happen. Jonathan: I think that's a really interesting example you've just touched on, Latha, where I may diverge a bit in terms of what I think is the key issue. The right to withdraw I think is a really interesting challenge for us going forward, because we developed the right to withdraw in the ethics of research studies that had physical interventions. It's really clear that someone who is being put to discomfort and is having things done to her body, if she wants to stop that, we can't justify continuing on the basis of it being a research project. But I'm less clear whether that applies to withdrawing data from data pools. I think there are a few dimensions to that which I hope as an Ethics Advisory Committee we'll have a chance to think through a bit more. One is the mutual obligations that we owe to each other. I'm not in these particular studies but I do try and take part in research studies when I'm eligible and invited to because I think research is important. When I take part in things and when our participants have taken part, they're doing something in which they rely on other people participating because the aggregation of the data is what makes it power. One of the things we have to be honest about is what are our mutual expectations of each other, so I think we absolutely have to hold on to the fact that people should be able to withdraw from further interventions, but I'm not convinced that you should have the right to say the data I've previously contributed that other people have relied on can suddenly be sucked out and taken out of it, because I think it's reasonable for us to say if this is a sort of part of an enterprise. While you're part of it, you've made some commitments as well as, and that's part of the mutuality of the respect. I think I personally would want to argue you can withdraw from new things, but provided that your privacy is not intruded on, so we're talking about data health anonymously, you shouldn't be able to say don't process it anymore. Latha: No, no, no. What I meant was from my perspective I would like to be constantly involved and get information through trickling. I don't know what my daughter feels years down the line, she might say I'm happy for my data to be used for research, but I don't want to know anymore. There are two aspects of that, and I think if we are clear with that and say continue with my data being used for research, but I don't want to get anymore letters. I think those are the kind of questions I face when I tell them families that these are the uncertainties, you can have your blood stored, you may not be approached again for a resampling unless you have some other issues, but are we happy with this? I think that's what I understand, and I try and recruit with that intention. Jonathan: And that makes lots of sense to me. As you say, you probably can't speak for your daughters now, and you certainly can't speak for them when they become parents for themselves and those things, but we do need to create an ethical framework which recognises that people will change their mind on things and people will vary about what they want to do. But because we have mutual obligations, what that means and the control we can give, we have to be open and honest about what choices we can give people without undermining the enterprise and what choices we say, “you don't have to do this, but if you want to be part of it, there are some common mutual obligations that are intrinsic”, and that's true of researchers, it's true of clinicians, it's true of anyone who works in Genomics England or the NHS.   But I don't think we've been very good at explaining to people that there's an element of this which is a package. A bit like when I bank, I allow the bank to track my transactions and to call me if they see something that looks out of the ordinary as a part of the protections from me. I can't opt out of that bit. I can opt out of them sending me letters and just say do it by email or whatever and I have some choices, but there's an infrastructure of the system which is helping it to function well and do the things it's able to do. I don't think we've been very good at explaining that to people, because we've tended to say, “as long as you've signed the consent form at the beginning of the process, it doesn't really matter what happens after that, you've been told.”. That's not enough I think for good ethics.  Latha: And I think that comes back to the other issue about training those who are consenting. I speak from personal experience within my own teams I can see somebody might say, “I don't do whole genomic sequencing consenting; I don't have the time for it.”. I might even have my organisational lead saying when we had a letter come through to say now we're no longer doing this, we're going to be doing this test for everybody, there's a whole gasp because it's at least two hours' worth of time and how are we going to generate that time with the best of intentions. I think that's where I think the vision and the pragmatic, you know, the grounding, those two should somehow link with each other. The vision of Genomics England with working with NHS England and with the future, Health Education England arm that is not amalgamated with NHS England, is trying to see how do we train our future clinicians who will hopefully consider it as part of their embedded working thinking and analysis, but also, how do we change the here and the now? The more senior conservative thinking people, who are worried about how do they have to generate time to manage, we're probably already a bit burnt out or burning out, how do they generate time? If you then discover new conditions whether there is already bottleneck in various pathways, how are we ethically managing the new diagnosis and how will they fit in in the waiting list criteria of those people on the journey who are symptomatic. I find that bottleneck when I have conversations with colleagues is the anxiety, how is that going to be addressed.  Jonathan: Latha, you've sort of taken us around in a circle. We started off thinking what was special about genomics, and we've reflected on ‘we have to solve the problems of the health service'. I think that there's some wisdom in that, because we are learning how to do things that are not unique to genomics, but there's an opportunity in genomics to do it better and an opportunity for us to help other areas of the health service do better, too. I think we've come around in full circle in a sense.  Natalie: Which feels like a lovely way to wrap up our conversation. I feel like we've gone into some of the deep ethical principles but also really shown how they can be brought into the practice, into the clinic and brought to bear the thinking and the feelings, the hopes the anxieties of participants. There's a very, very important range of different voices so a very rich discussion.   I'd just like to thank you both very much for joining us on the podcast. Thank you to our guests, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli for joining me today as we discussed ethics in genomics research and practice. If you would like to hear more like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. Thank you for listening. I've been your host, Natalie Banner. This podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital, and produced by Naimah Callachand.

Hello, and welcome to number 142. This week, I am joined by Joel David Bond, who has just returned from living in Kurdistan, Iraq, for the last seven years. The FBI/CIA evacuated Joel in October 2023, and we talk about that story but also Joel's love for the country, his life there, what he learned from being in that culture, and the shocking ending to his stint. In COVID, Joel was stranded on a Greek Island that housed hundreds of asylum seekers an hour's bus ride from his resort apartment; we talked about those two worlds coming together in the most unlikely scenario and some uncomfortable truths. Also nestled into the conversation is Joel's two-year stint at British Airways, and we hear some funny tales about a career that is not so seemingly dreamy.A lot is packed into this one, and we barely touched the sides with Joel's other travels, which are hitting the 90-country mark. Right now, Joel is back in the USA figuring out his next moves, and there are many funny stories, reflections and laughs in this episode. Check out Joel's stuff below.Enjoy. Be inspired!Joel David BondWebsite - https://www.joeldavidbond.comAs Large As Your Spirit Memoir - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW31G8LR?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_RX0AY2RP3FFQ65K1NEM6Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/joeldavidbondPatreon Shout-OutThanks to Laura Hammond for supporting this podcast. She does so by purchasing a monthly membership on my Patreon. You can support me, too, by checking out the details below!Winging It Travel PodcastWebsite - https://www.wingingittravelpodcast.comWinging It Travel Podcast YouTube ChannelWeekly travel episodes, interviews and Vancouver.YouTube - HereWinging It Travel Podcast CreditsHost/Creator/Writer/Composer/Editor - James HammondProducer - James HammondPodcast Art Design - Swamp Soup Company - Harry UttonContact me - jameshammondtravel@gmail.com Social Media - follow me on:Instagram - wingingittravelpodcast - https://www.instagram.com/wingingittravelpodcast/TikTok - wingingittravelpodcast - https://www.tiktok.com/@wingingittravelpodcastFacebook - Winging It Travel Podcast - https://www.facebook.com/jameshammondtravelReview - Please leave a review and rating wherever you get your podcasts!Support My Podcast - MembershipsPatreon - HereBuy Me A Coffee - HereSupport My Podcast - Affiliate Links If you click one of the below to book something, I get a tiny commission, which helps the podcast.Use Revolut - HereBook Your E-Sim With Airalo - HereBook Hostels With Hostelworld - HereBooking.com - Here Book Experiences With Viator - HereDiscovery Car Hire - HereBook Buses With Busbud - HereBook Trains With Trainline - Here Travel Insurance with SafetyWing - HereBook Flights With Expedia Canada - HereBook Hotels with Hotel.com - HereBook Hotels With Agoda - HereBook Hotels With Trivago - HereBook Accommodation With Vrbo - HereBooking Events With Ticketmaster - HereMerch Store - Here Buy my Digital Travel Planner - HereThanks for supporting me and the podcast! Happy travels and listening!Cheers, James.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/winging-it-travel-podcast--4777249/support.

This podcast was recorded over the course of the pandemic, and this is the very first episode. A lot of what I saw in real time ended up being prescient in retrospect. I went back and listened to it recently, and decided it was worth sharing with my readers and listeners. I hope you enjoy it, as a historical artifact at least. As a production note, all of it was recorded by me, edited by me, written by me, etc. It was only me around. Because it was a pandemic. So who else was gonna do it? This is the the first of the number of these episodes that I will release in this feed.Owen Muir: On February 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization announced the official name for the disease-causing virus responsible for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, first identified in Wuhan, China. The new name of this disease is abbreviated as COVID-19.Owen Muir: So Quinn, what's the best way to avoid getting coronavirus?Quinn: Coronavirus. You have to get dirty when your hands get dirty.Owen Muir: You have to get dirty when your hands get dirty. How about what you shouldn't touch with them? Should you touch your face?Quinn: No.Owen Muir: Should you touch your nose?Quinn: No.Owen Muir: How about your mouth?Quinn: No!Carlene MacMillan: So we came up with a name.Owen Muir: Oh. Well, what is it?Carlene MacMillan: Well, it's remotely possible.Owen Muir: Oh, that's the name.Carlene MacMillan: Yeah. Well, it's remotely possible. The podcast about uncertainty, anxiety, and existential despair.Owen Muir: Maybe you could say it a little bit slower because it's important to say things slow enough for the audience to keep up.Carlene MacMillan: Well, it's remotely possible—the podcast is about uncertainty, anxiety, and existential despair.Owen Muir: So as not to get confused, here are some introductions. My name is Dr. Owen Muir, and I'm your host. After that, you heard Quinn Muir, my four-year-old. Teaching us how to say no to touching different parts of your face. Subsequently, Carlene MacMillan, MD, told us the name of the show.Owen Muir: You're going to hear a lot of other teammates on the show coming up, and I'll introduce them as they come along. In COVID-19, CO stands for Corona, VI stands for virus, and D stands, unsurprisingly, for disease.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: It's kinda eerie. Because it's a beautiful day in New York City.Owen Muir: Thanks, Michelle. Next up, you will meet RJ, our awesome IT manager.R.J. Smith: I got on the subway and realized I hadn't been there in three weeks. And I thought how lucky I was not to get infected.Tracy: I'm Tracy. I'm, I think I'm reacting normally. Like, the right amount of anxiety. , I'm not so much concerned about me getting it. Like, if I get it, I'll probably be fine.Owen Muir: This is Tracy. She's one of our Winnicott coaches and TMS technicians.Owen Muir: Jacqueline is also a TMS technician and Winnicott coach.Jacqueline Caso MSW: honestly, I haven't done anything different. , I'm not super concerned; more concerned about the panic than the virus itself. I think people a little probably going to freak out.Owen Muir: There are many types of human coronaviruses. Including some that commonly cause mild upper respiratory infections, COVID 19 however, is a new disease caused by a novel coronavirus that has not been previously seen in humans. We're a mental health practice. But we realized something big was happening.Owen Muir: Next up, I talked to Michelle Bernabe, RN, my co-host, about mentalizing:“So you see, we wanted to mentalize and tried to define that. Do you want to do that?Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Define mentalization?Owen Muir: Yeah.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I want to define mindfulness of self and others.Owen Muir: Mindfulness for the both of us.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Mindfulness for the both of us. Okay, so here I am on my second hour of Twitter. Scrolling, scrolling, reading about all the exponential predictions of how America's healthcare system will be completely burned and then collapse because there are not enough beds. And I have convinced myself I will... Be without a bed needing a bed in two weeks' time.Owen Muir: People in the United States might be worried or anxious. Friends or relatives living or visiting areas where COVID-19 is spreading may become infected. Some people are worried about the disease. Fear and anxiety can lead to social stigma, for example, towards Chinese or other Asian Americans or people who were in quarantine.Owen Muir: That is where we come in as mental health professionals.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Well, I mean, how do you think they're feeling?R.J. Smith: Scared?Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Scared about what?R.J. Smith: Being sick.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Right now, isn't it just so much more than being sick?R.J. Smith: No, I don't know. To me, it's just being sick.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Really?R.J. Smith: Yeah, and weaponizing the illness.Owen Muir: As we prepared to do this show, I talked to a lot of my colleagues about their fears.Owen Muir: One of our social workers, Erica, has asthma.Erica Zajac, LSW: I'm concerned about suffering. If I get sick, my lung functioning is already not optimal. Dying is a part of life. The dying part is not the problem because then my brain, which goes 5 million miles an hour, will be thinking constantly while I'm there that I'm suffering.Owen Muir: Stigma hurts everyone by creating more fear or anger towards ordinary people instead of the disease that is causing the problem. In the days leading up to making this show, we had a lot of conversations. Started out jokey, and in retrospect, it sounds tone-deaf.R.J. Smith: Yeah, and I knew for sure that I had...Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Coronavirus.Owen Muir: To be perfectly clear, RJ doesn't have coronavirus.R.J. Smith: Yeah.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: And how do you feel this morning?R.J. Smith: Like, I have coronavirus, but I probably don't. I probably already had it.Owen Muir: Sometimes it's safer to feel like you've already got the disease in a pandemic.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Yeah, that's what we were getting to.R.J. Smith: So I'm immune now.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I got off track. Well, you know, in my thorough research on Twitter...Owen Muir: It's unclear if prior exposure to COVID-19 provides inoculation against future infection.Owen Muir: It was the case with both MERS and SARS, but we don't have the data on COVID-19.R.J. Smith: My mom would do this thing where she would be like, okay, now that you're sick, we need to sanitize everything in the house cause you'll get sick again. And I'll say, Mom, that's not how immunology works.R.J. Smith: I'm not going to get sick from something I've already had. She is very insistent that that was a lie made up by Who knows the overseers, I guessMichelle Bernabe, R.N.: by the Illuminati.R.J. Smith: Yes, the medical Illuminati, which is a very real thingMichelle Bernabe, R.N.: I knowR.J. Smith: Jay z's a part of it.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I can't tell you how I know.R.J. Smith: Oh, Tell me more. Oh, I guess you can't.Owen Muir: Carlene MacMillan chimes in about the value of social distancing and how it's different from quarantineCarlene MacMillan: You asked me to explain social distancing. I'm sitting next to you, very close. It's not social distancing.Owen Muir: It's not social distancing. Uh, you're probably already exposed to me and me to you.Carlene MacMillan: This is true, which is why I've taken this calculated risk.Owen Muir: Okay. So, what are we doing to help, not just... People's fear and anxiety about COVID-19 help slow down the spread.Carlene MacMillan: If you told me a week ago that we'd be doing something called social distancing, I would have said that was totally opposite to what we do as psychiatrists. However, times have changed. Now I understand social distancing to mean that we're taking steps to slow the spread of COVID-19.Owen Muir: Like, like what?Carlene MacMillan: So it means... If there is something we can do while maintaining a safe social distance, we're going to do it.Owen Muir: According to the CDC, that's about six feet.Carlene MacMillan: That's right.  It's about Six feet.Owen Muir: for us to make it six feet or more, is there a way we can do that?Owen Muir: Sure. So that's where HIPAA-compliant Telehealth platforms come in, like Zoom. So over the past few days, we've switched over everything Telehealth. We can't do that for services people need to come into the office for, like TMS.  But for everything else, we can do it over the computer. We can make it work, and that's what we've been doing. I was talking to my psychiatrist the other day, and he pointed out a really interesting thing that people are not talking about: the difference between social distancing and quarantining and why social distancing is so important.The deal is that if you're around someone they have COVID-19, you are then going to be quarantined. So if we ran a group therapy session and one of those group patients, or even a group leader, had COVID-19, then the whole group would be down for the count, essentially, you know, locked in their house for two weeks, or whatever the CDC recommends.Owen Muir: However, if we make calculated choices by doing social distancing, we can minimize the chance of that happening, which means we'll have more freedom, more ability to make choices around our movements than if we do whatever we want.  With COVID-19, we can see change coming. Come with us and figure out how we will handle this thing together.Michelle Bernabe, R.N., featured above, writes . This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thefrontierpsychiatrists.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode Ariel is joined by Dr Erica Wood about what naturopathy actually is and all the ways it can help you.Always ask your doctor before taking anyone's advice.A Naturopathic Doctor has graduated from a naturopathic medical school and often a multi-year residency, as compared to a Naturopath, who does an online, much shorter course of study.Dr Erica's Tips: Fresh air and morning sunlight to set sleep/wake cycle Fresh water: 10 oz. of water before you walk out the door, and half your body weight in ounces a day Protein: 5 servings of palm-size a day.  The "high five." 3 meals and 2 snacks. Movement and breathing. Taking 4 deep breaths in, exhale for 6 counts. Sleep: the best thing you can do. KEY TAKEAWAYS Naturopathy basically uses nature as medicine to try to find the root cause of what's going on. There are 7 principles of naturopathic medicine: The V (the healing power of nature), identify and treat the cause, doctor as teacher, treating the whole person, prevention, the power of medical literature, the power of research and how it can help our profession. I see patients from 3 days old up to 100 and we treat everything from gut dysbiosis to mood to PMS to perimenopause to ADHD, it all blends together, you don't treat one disease you treat the whole person. In Covid a lot of people got really focussed on their health because they were locked inside and what else was there to do but focus on your health? People were afraid of getting Covid so they realised the power of prevention and things they could do to lower their co-morbidities (other diseases that could lower our chances of worst-case-scenarios). If you have heartburn I don't prescribe you medicine, I take a look at how your gut is, how your flora is (the good-for-you bacteria in your gut), maybe take a look at your stress levels, or even look at food sensitivities to see if something is really aggravating you. Perimenopause is one of my favourite times to work with a woman. The medical field doesn't really recognise the perimenopause. We take a look at a lot of different things like sometimes its stress and our adrenal response which is causing hot flushes and weight gain because the adrenals were never happy to begin with, so by treating them the transition can be easier.  BEST MOMENTS“We understand that the natural world is assisting the healing process and we use what we can in nature to help that along.”“Telehealth has made it possible where I can treat anyone in Washington State.”“A good primary care provider knows what's in their realm and what's not in their realm.”“I always recommend patients to get up, go outside in the morning – regardless of how cold it is – take 5 deep breaths of fresh air and have morning sunlight.” ABOUT THE GUESTDr Erica Wood is a Naturopathic Doctor who specialises in primary care.  Her focus is on pediatrics and women's health.  She sees patients of all ages, genders and stages of their lives.  She uses integrative care to approach everyone's health needs as individuals, not their symptoms and works to find root causes of concerns.  Dr Wood works at the Naturopathic Clinic of IssaquahSocials:Instagram: @DrEricaWoodFacebook: @EricaWoodND ABOUT THE HOSTAriel is a Licensed Massage Therapist, Registered Clinical Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, Empath and Psychic who has been involved in holistic healing since 1988. She is also an educator, speaker, author and mentor for empaths, spiritual seekers and medical professionals. To reach Ariel, go to www.arielhubbard.com, where you will be able to contact her directly.  Please let her know you heard her on the podcast and the assistance you need or question you have.Website: www.arielhubbard.com Online Courses: http://hubbardeducationgroup.myclick4course.com LinkedIn: @arielhubbardIG: @arielhubbardFacebook: @HubbardEducationGroupYT: @arielhubbardCH: @arielhubbard Pinterest:   https://pin.it/6Z6RozS Pre-order form for Ariel's educational, hilarious and spicy dating book: The Empowered Woman's Guide to Online Dating: Set Your BS Tolerance to Zerohttps://eworder.replynow.ontraport.net/ Access to the Mindset Reset Club: https://mindsetreset.members-only.online/This show was brought to you by Progressive Media

After Joe Biden officially announced he is running for re-election in 2024, he says he needs to "finish the job." Finish the job of what? Destroying the country? It's like Joe Biden has run over the American people with his car and is now trying to put the car in reverse! In COVID news, Fauci claims he never shut anything down, but we have the tape of him saying the exact opposite. The media reacts to Tucker Carlson leaving Fox News. Coach Nick Saban throws a first pitch. Then we argue about Van Halen and the merits of raw honey for the last hour of the show.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After Joe Biden officially announced he is running for re-election in 2024, he says he needs to "finish the job." Finish the job of what? Destroying the country? It's like Joe Biden has run over the American people with his car and is now trying to put the car in reverse! In COVID news, Fauci claims he never shut anything down, but we have the tape of him saying the exact opposite. The media reacts to Tucker Carlson leaving Fox News. Coach Nick Saban throws a first pitch. Then we argue about Van Halen and the merits of raw honey for the last hour of the show.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison without parole after being convicted of murdering his wife and son. It all unfolded while we were live on the air. We discuss and hear from an expert on murder: O.J. Simpson. In COVID news, medical experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford testify before Congress and say what we have been saying for two years about vaccines, masks, and natural immunity. And Doug Emhoff, Kamala's husband, speaks out against toxic masculinity. Kissing Jill Biden during the State of the Union seemed pretty toxic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison without parole after being convicted of murdering his wife and son. It all unfolded while we were live on the air. We discuss and hear from an expert on murder: O.J. Simpson. In COVID news, medical experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford testify before Congress and say what we have been saying for two years about vaccines, masks, and natural immunity. And Doug Emhoff, Kamala's husband, speaks out against toxic masculinity. Kissing Jill Biden during the State of the Union seemed pretty toxic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loses her bid for re-election, which is a good sign for the city that has seen a spike in violent crime during her administration. In COVID news, we look at a montage of media lies saying the lab-leak theory was a dangerous and racist claim to make. Who are the conspiracy theorists now? The iPhone is revealed to have a hidden "clean energy charging" feature that may be making your iPhone charge slower. Here's how to turn it off. Guitarist Damon Johnson joins us to share what it was like touring with Van Halen and Lynyrd Skynyrd. And Joe Biden shares a very weird story about a nurse. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loses her bid for re-election, which is a good sign for the city that has seen a spike in violent crime during her administration. In COVID news, we look at a montage of media lies saying the lab-leak theory was a dangerous and racist claim to make. Who are the conspiracy theorists now? The iPhone is revealed to have a hidden "clean energy charging" feature that may be making your iPhone charge slower. Here's how to turn it off. Guitarist Damon Johnson joins us to share what it was like touring with Van Halen and Lynyrd Skynyrd. And Joe Biden shares a very weird story about a nurse. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to This Month in German, Swiss, and Austrian (GSA) Startups in October 2022 by Startuprad.io with Chris from Essen, Germany, and Joe from Frankfurt. We recorded this news episode on Thursday, October 20th, 2022. Our Highlights: Another one of our former guests gets a Snoop Dog investment. Quick delivery startup Gorillas seems to sell itself to competitor Getir, according to Bloomberg, despite an earlier announcement they are looking for more investments. Gadget rental service Grover adds 270 m € in venture debt, getting it close to 2 billion €. Our former guest Nuri (formerly Bitwala) had to file for insolvency, now investors jump ship and the company is wound down this year. Volocopter is sued by early crowdfunding backers, Home24 has a takeover offer from a brick-and-mortar furniture retailer and BioNTech takes on cancer. Also, Munich-based travel tech Holidu raises 100 m € in a combination of 75 m equity and 25 m debt funding. Let's talk startups: Our Enablers Younium Younium is the subscription management and billing platform for B2B SaaS. Younium brings the transformative infrastructure to manage and grow your business while you focus on the things that matter. https://www.younium.com/ Tvarit Tvarit is an industrial ai startup, that helps companies to reduce rejections by 40%-60% in metal casting, as well as saving up to 18% on energy. Learn more here: https://www.tvarit.com/ Invest-in-Hessen This show was made possible by Hessen Trade and Invest with their brand Invest-in-Hessen. You can learn more about them here (https://www.invest-in-hessen.com/). We also run a dedicated sub-podcast with all interviews and news in cooperation with them. Find it all here: Tech Startups Germany - Startups and Venture Capital Startupraven.com The best way to identify investors and cooperation partners for early stage startups. Sign up for early access here: Startup Raven Top News Europe's Largest Cannabis Funding To Date Europe's largest cannabis funding to date: Snoop Dogg-backed German cannabis startup gets $37.6M Series B led by British American Tobacco learn more about the Entrepreneur of the Year 2021 (German Startup Awards) founder Finn Age Hänsel in our interview Gorillas May Soon Be Bought By Getir Delivery Startup Getir in Advanced Talks to Buy Gorillas (Bloomberg). They write: “Proposed deal for Gorillas would be a mix of cash and equity The combination would give Getir, which is backed by Mubadala Investment Co. and Sequoia Capital, scale in key European markets including the UK and Germany. Gorillas had previously held talks with a number of competitors about the prospects for a merger or sale of its business, people familiar with the matter said previously. Chief Executive Officer Kagan Sumer said earlier this year that he planned to look for new financing to recalibrate the company to work toward profitability.”  Grover Takes Home 270 m € As consumer spending tightens, yet appetites for tech remain the same, Berlin-based Grover sees an uptick in rental interest and is now bringing its debt funding to close to €2 billion to meet demand. Grover takes on more debt funding, this time €270 million from London-based M&G Our Former Guest Nuri (Bitwala) Will be wound down. Despite seeing interest from investors, they could not get one to sign up. So the company will be shut down until the end of the year. The last day one can use a Nuri account is in mid-December. Neobank Vivid makes all former Nuri customers a good offer. Insolvency administrator of crypto startup Nuri sees interest in the platform and fintech sales capacities After the crypto markets did not turn positive, two potential investors in Nuri jumped ship, so the company will not emerge from insolvency but be wound down  Volocopter Now Sued by Crowdinvestors German unicorn Volocopter was sued by 177 former crowd backers, who feel they should have gotten “a fair participation”, especially since they backed the company very early We Mentioned Home24 on a Regular Basis Now they stand alone time may be over. We talked in the past about lowering forecasts and the tough environments. Now XXXLutz — a traditional brick-and-mortar furniture store — made an offer to buy Home24 BioNTech Takes on Cancer First, they took on Corona with their widely successful vaccine. Now the doctors are hopeful it could lead to new treatments for melanoma, bowel cancer, and other tumor types. The mRNA technology being used works by sending an instruction or blueprint to cells to produce an antigen or protein. In Covid, this antigen is part of the spike protein of the virus. In cancer, it would be a marker on the surface of tumor cells, which teaches the immune system to attack it.Learn more on BBC: Could Covid vaccine technology crack cancer? TravelTech is Not Dead Munich-based traveltech startup Holidu raises 100 m € for renting out vacation homes. The 75 m € Series E investment is led by VC 83North, other investors include Northzone, HV Capital, Vintage Investment Partners, and Communfund Capital. Holidu also raised 25 m € venture debt. The brother's Johannes and Michael Siebers will use the money for product development, geographic expansion, and acquisitions. Links and Show Notes Learn more here

It's Good Friday and we take time to worship and observe the greatest story ever told. In COVID news, we hear from two doctors with vastly differing opinions. Joe Biden shakes an invisible hand. Elon Musk gets pushback in his attempt to own Twitter. And Greg makes a huge mess in the break room. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.