4 ms·

Because they can't make enough of them. How long did it take between the end of Phase 3 trials and you getting your first dose? Beyond that, Cuba's economy is

Because they can't make enough of them. How long did it take between the end of Phase 3 trials and you getting your first dose? Beyond that, Cuba's economy is in shambles as there is no tourism to make money from and as covid restrictions are incredibly strict while cases are increasing. If you've never had the chance to live as an average citizen in an average developing country it's hard to understand, but actually fleeing on boats is really not uncommon. Where I'm from people that can't even swim take discarded water bottles, stuff them under their t-shirts, and swim 40km to richer countries, for purely economic reasons. When you don't have enough money for a plane ticket, you don't have the choice, and it's a lot more common in the world than you think. Cuba doesn't even have emigration rates that are out of the norm for poor countries close to rich countries.

hooplah 5y ago
Cuba isn't in shambles because it's a developing country, it's in shambles because of it's communistic repressive regime. Cuba's government sends doctors to other countries for the money while ignoring their own citizens. Just as Venezuela's collapse was due to Maduro's communistic regime and led to the influx of immigrants to the US, Cuba suffered the same fate since the Castro regime. Yes people from poverty stricken countries do sometimes flee to richer countries for a better life, but oppressive regimes cause fleeing on a massive scale. Look at what's causing the poverty. Is it developing and getting better, or is it oppressed by a corrupt government and getting worst. -- edit for other's saying it's the embargo's fault -- The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government. With truly democratic elections and a capitalistic system they'd allow their citizens to gain wealth without taxing them into poverty and they'd also gain sanction relief because they allowed the freedom to pursue happiness. Lots of communism apologizing in this thread. Pointing the finger at the embargo like the regime always does, while pointing it away from the human rights violations. Cuba fell because of communism. Venezuela fell because of communism. Both were economic powerhouses in the region before. Sanctions came after the fact.
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  The sanction are in place because of the US's long time hatred of the Cuba government. We're still mad about the 1959 land reforms.
  - hooplah 5y ago
    That is a lie. We're "mad" about Castro seizing power and nationalizing everything under his oppressive regime. Human rights violations: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba Cuba sanctions: https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/ https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/ Are you suggesting JFK had an ulterior motive?
    - etc-hosts 5y ago
      Most of the valuable agricultural land that Castro nationalized was owned by US businesses. The people working the land did not own the land. The US businesses ended up owning the land because of the Spanish American War.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government. The regime can end the sanctions at any time: simply allow for democracy and return the stolen property. It's that simple. That they would prefer their people risking their lives on rafts and starving should tell us all something about the Castros.
sergiotapia 5y ago
Cuba is in shambles because of communism and communist ideals.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Perhaps. I've lived in capitalist developing countries that were even poorer - hence people stuffing water bottles in their shirt - so I can't honestly conclude that it is the reason.
  - seanicus 5y ago
    You're taking way too much of a good faith reading that comment. There's way more nuance than "communism bad," though it is very true that sanctions and the Castros and their cronies have both done great harm to Cuba.
- seanicus 5y ago
  Cuba has been in shambles since, at the very least, Batista came to power in a CIA-backed coup with monetary help from organized crime. After his government was overthrown all of that money dried up and the sanctions imposed (with no attempt at diplomacy) have choked the country out until this day. Yes, what little money comes in is siphoned off by the crooked Castro government, but there's a lot more to the history of Cuba and Latin America than "communism bad."
- loloquwowndueo 5y ago
  Right, with a capitalist system they’d laugh in the face of the economic blockades.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's not a 'Blockade', which would normally mean someone trying to stop anyone/anything from entering or leaving. US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US. And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo. Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.
alentist 5y ago
> fleeing on boats is really not uncommon To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?
- pjc50 5y ago
  ... how do you propose escaping without then entering somewhere else? Same thing, surely?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Except for motive. Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss. In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I don't exactly follow. When my family emigrated from an impoverished North African nation, we were escaping poverty and dysfunction just as much as we were going to richer countries.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Sure, it can be both at once. But it doesn't have to be. Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere. In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.
        5y ago
jollybean 5y ago
Cuba is only a 'developing economy' because of Castro's oppression. Otherwise, it should probably be above Brazil and Argentina in terms of standard of living. It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile. Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Perhaps it would have been, perhaps it wouldn't. There is no way to know, most likely it would have reverted towards the norm. Cuba has always been in very dire situations politically, I see no reason why Castro wouldn't have been replaced by someone else and then someone else etc... As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.
- TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
  You don't think the US embargo on Cuba played a significant role in stifling their economic growth and development?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The embargo is not the driving factor really. Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up. You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed. If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper. Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally. Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries. But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba. Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries. Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount. Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.
kjaleshire 5y ago
Castro annihilated the land-owning middle class in the first years of his premiership [1], using the same playbook as Lenin wrt the Kulaks after the October revolution [2]: do away with the financially and thus politically independent asap. Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now. [1] http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  More accurately, Cuba traded with the Soviet Union and received food in exchange for its exports. I don't think Cuba was ever fully self-sufficient in food before, either. Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  Before Castro took over, almost half of all agricultural land in Cuba was owned by US businesses. The agricultural workers almost all lived in shacks without power or plumbing. There's a reason Castro was so popular at the time. In exchange, Castro offered long term bonds, but I don't think anyone accepted.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    And yet, you look at Hawaii, what was in a very similar situation, and a very different scenario occurred during the last century. Pretty sure if you offered Hawaiians and Cubans the possibility to switch places, many Cubans would want to do it, but not many Hawaiians!
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I don't see what's your point, that the US should invade Cuba against the will of their residents and incorporate it as the 52nd state so that eventually 50 years later the kids of the current generation may be favourable to it?
908B64B197 5y ago
> Because they can't make enough of them Or because they don't work. The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals. There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I think this is fairly unlikely. If that was the case, Cuba wouldn't be negotiating with Vietnam to manufacture it. I think it's almost certain that it is an effective vaccine.

hooplah 5y ago

Cuba isn't in shambles because it's a developing country, it's in shambles because of it's communistic repressive regime. Cuba's government sends doctors to other countries for the money while ignoring their own citizens. Just as Venezuela's collapse was due to Maduro's communistic regime and led to the influx of immigrants to the US, Cuba suffered the same fate since the Castro regime. Yes people from poverty stricken countries do sometimes flee to richer countries for a better life, but oppressive regimes cause fleeing on a massive scale. Look at what's causing the poverty. Is it developing and getting better, or is it oppressed by a corrupt government and getting worst. -- edit for other's saying it's the embargo's fault -- The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government. With truly democratic elections and a capitalistic system they'd allow their citizens to gain wealth without taxing them into poverty and they'd also gain sanction relief because they allowed the freedom to pursue happiness. Lots of communism apologizing in this thread. Pointing the finger at the embargo like the regime always does, while pointing it away from the human rights violations. Cuba fell because of communism. Venezuela fell because of communism. Both were economic powerhouses in the region before. Sanctions came after the fact.

etc-hosts 5y ago
The sanction are in place because of the US's long time hatred of the Cuba government. We're still mad about the 1959 land reforms.
- hooplah 5y ago
  That is a lie. We're "mad" about Castro seizing power and nationalizing everything under his oppressive regime. Human rights violations: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba Cuba sanctions: https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/ https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/ Are you suggesting JFK had an ulterior motive?
  - etc-hosts 5y ago
    Most of the valuable agricultural land that Castro nationalized was owned by US businesses. The people working the land did not own the land. The US businesses ended up owning the land because of the Spanish American War.
908B64B197 5y ago
> The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government. The regime can end the sanctions at any time: simply allow for democracy and return the stolen property. It's that simple. That they would prefer their people risking their lives on rafts and starving should tell us all something about the Castros.

sergiotapia 5y ago

Cuba is in shambles because of communism and communist ideals.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Perhaps. I've lived in capitalist developing countries that were even poorer - hence people stuffing water bottles in their shirt - so I can't honestly conclude that it is the reason.
- seanicus 5y ago
  You're taking way too much of a good faith reading that comment. There's way more nuance than "communism bad," though it is very true that sanctions and the Castros and their cronies have both done great harm to Cuba.
seanicus 5y ago
Cuba has been in shambles since, at the very least, Batista came to power in a CIA-backed coup with monetary help from organized crime. After his government was overthrown all of that money dried up and the sanctions imposed (with no attempt at diplomacy) have choked the country out until this day. Yes, what little money comes in is siphoned off by the crooked Castro government, but there's a lot more to the history of Cuba and Latin America than "communism bad."
loloquwowndueo 5y ago
Right, with a capitalist system they’d laugh in the face of the economic blockades.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's not a 'Blockade', which would normally mean someone trying to stop anyone/anything from entering or leaving. US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US. And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo. Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.

alentist 5y ago

> fleeing on boats is really not uncommon To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?

pjc50 5y ago
... how do you propose escaping without then entering somewhere else? Same thing, surely?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Except for motive. Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss. In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    I don't exactly follow. When my family emigrated from an impoverished North African nation, we were escaping poverty and dysfunction just as much as we were going to richer countries.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Sure, it can be both at once. But it doesn't have to be. Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere. In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.
      - 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

Cuba is only a 'developing economy' because of Castro's oppression. Otherwise, it should probably be above Brazil and Argentina in terms of standard of living. It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile. Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4

sudosysgen 5y ago
Perhaps it would have been, perhaps it wouldn't. There is no way to know, most likely it would have reverted towards the norm. Cuba has always been in very dire situations politically, I see no reason why Castro wouldn't have been replaced by someone else and then someone else etc... As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.
TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
You don't think the US embargo on Cuba played a significant role in stifling their economic growth and development?
- jollybean 5y ago
  The embargo is not the driving factor really. Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up. You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed. If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper. Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally. Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries. But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba. Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries. Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount. Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.

kjaleshire 5y ago

Castro annihilated the land-owning middle class in the first years of his premiership [1], using the same playbook as Lenin wrt the Kulaks after the October revolution [2]: do away with the financially and thus politically independent asap. Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now. [1] http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period

sudosysgen 5y ago
More accurately, Cuba traded with the Soviet Union and received food in exchange for its exports. I don't think Cuba was ever fully self-sufficient in food before, either. Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.
etc-hosts 5y ago
Before Castro took over, almost half of all agricultural land in Cuba was owned by US businesses. The agricultural workers almost all lived in shacks without power or plumbing. There's a reason Castro was so popular at the time. In exchange, Castro offered long term bonds, but I don't think anyone accepted.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  And yet, you look at Hawaii, what was in a very similar situation, and a very different scenario occurred during the last century. Pretty sure if you offered Hawaiians and Cubans the possibility to switch places, many Cubans would want to do it, but not many Hawaiians!
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    I don't see what's your point, that the US should invade Cuba against the will of their residents and incorporate it as the 52nd state so that eventually 50 years later the kids of the current generation may be favourable to it?

908B64B197 5y ago

> Because they can't make enough of them Or because they don't work. The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals. There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I think this is fairly unlikely. If that was the case, Cuba wouldn't be negotiating with Vietnam to manufacture it. I think it's almost certain that it is an effective vaccine.