Almost two in three Canadians surveyed recently said they trust COVID-19 vaccines to be both safe and effective.
Proof Strategies conducts a survey every year to assess how much faith Canadians have in major institutions and authorities.
Bruce MacLellan, Proof’s CEO, says trust in vaccines is not quite strong enough, based on health experts who suggest at least three-quarters of Canadians need to be vaccinated for good herd immunity against COVID-19 to take effect.
“It is concerning,” said MacLellan.
The survey was conducted online with about 1,500 respondents between Jan. 8 and Jan. 20.
The polling industry’s professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error as they are not random and therefore are not necessarily representative of the whole population.
Canada has approved two vaccines so far, one from Pfizer-BioNTech and a second from Moderna. Three others are under review; the federal government has bought two more, but neither of those is expected to be considered for approval until the fall.
More than 220,000 Canadians are now fully vaccinated with the two doses the current vaccines require, and almost 930,000 people have received single doses so far.
When the survey was taken, Canada was ramping up vaccinations, with more than 40,000 doses given out most days during that period. In the days since deliveries slowed to a crawl, and faith in the rollout plummeted.
At that time however, 64 per cent of people surveyed said they trusted the vaccines, a number that was relatively constant across the country. Younger people and low-income Canadians expressed less trust in the vaccines.
Eighty-six per cent of those over the age of 75 said they trusted the vaccines, compared with less than 60 per cent for millennials (between 25 and 44 years old) and Generation Z (between 18 and 24 years old.)
Almost seven in 10 people with incomes above $100,000 said they trusted the vaccines, compared to only half of those with low incomes.
The survey also reported that almost two-thirds of respondents trusted the federal and provincial public health doctors they see delivering updates on COVID-19 multiple times a week.
Canada’s chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam said Feb. 5 that Health Canada currently has data that suggests about 10 per cent of the population is not going to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and there is little that could change their minds. She said another 20 per cent or so don’t currently want to be vaccinated but could be persuaded.
Tam said some of the questions people have are relatively easy to answer, including some fear about how quickly the vaccines were developed, or questions about the data on how effective they are.
She noted there have been no serious adverse events after the vaccinations in Canada so far, and the more people who do get the shots safely, the more others may be convinced to follow suit.
“Look at our seniors,” she said. “They’re getting vaccinated. The vaccine has so far been safe, with no safety signals, so I think that’s actually a really good way of boosting vaccine confidence, is seeing other people get vaccinated.”
Tam said people who turn to mainstream media for their information are more likely to trust the vaccines than those who rely more heavily on social media.
The Proof survey also found a year into the pandemic, Canadians’ trust in doctors and scientists appears to have grown. In January 2020, the survey found about 76 per cent of respondents said they trusted doctors and 70 per cent had trust in scientists. In January 201 that had grown to 81 per cent for doctors and 77 per cent for scientists.
MacLellan said it is noteworthy that a year ago, friends and family were the most trusted sources of information for those surveyed, but this year scientists and doctors have both exceeded them.
Politicians did not fare as well. A year ago 40 per cent of those surveyed said they trusted government, compared to 32 per cent this year. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has seen a steady decline in trust over the five years he has been in office, with 46 per cent indicating trust in him in 2016, compared with 32 per cent this year.
Donald Trump’s historic second impeachment trial opened Tuesday with graphic video showing the former president whipping up a rally crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against his reelection defeat, followed by images of the deadly attack on Congress that came soon after.
WATCH VIDEO:
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/02/09/trump-second-impeachment-trial-senate/
In an early test of the former president’s defence, Trump’s team lost a crucial bid to halt the trial on constitutional grounds. Senators confirmed, 56-44, their jurisdiction over the trial, the first of a president no longer in office. While six Republican senators joined the Democrats in proceeding, the tally showed how far prosecutors have to go to win conviction, which requires a two-thirds threshold of 67 senators.
Tuesday’s vote was on whether a former president could be tried after leaving office.
House Democrats prosecuting the case told senators they were presenting “cold, hard facts” against Trump, who is charged with inciting the mob siege of the Capitol to overturn the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Senators sitting as jurors, many who themselves fled for safety that day, watched the jarring video of Trump supporters battling past police to storm the halls, Trump flags waving.
“That’s a high crime and misdemeanour,” declared Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., in opening remarks. “If that’s not an impeachable offence, then there’s no such thing.”
Trump is the first president to face impeachment charges after leaving office and the first to be twice impeached. The Capitol siege stunned the world as hundreds of rioters ransacked the building to try to stop the certification of Biden’s victory, a domestic attack on the nation’s seat of government unlike any in its history. Five people died.
Acquittal is likely, but the trial will test the nation’s attitude toward Trump’s brand of presidential power, the Democrats’ resolve in pursuing him, and the loyalty of Trump’s Republican allies defending him.
Trump’s lawyers are insisting that he is not guilty of the sole charge of “incitement of insurrection,” his fiery words just a figure of speech as he encouraged a rally crowd to “fight like hell” for his presidency. But prosecutors say he “has no good defence” and they promise new evidence.
Security remained extremely tight at the Capitol on Tuesday, a changed place after the attack, fenced off with razor wire with armed National Guard troops on patrol. The nine House managers walked across the shuttered building to prosecute the case before the Senate.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden would not be watching the trial of his predecessor.
“Joe Biden is the president, he’s not a pundit, he’s not going to opine on back and forth arguments,” she said.
With senators gathered as the court of impeachment, sworn to deliver “impartial justice,” the trial started with debate and a vote over whether it’s constitutionally permissible to prosecute Trump after he is no longer in the White House.
Trump’s defence team has focused on that question, which could resonate with Republicans eager to acquit Trump without being seen as condoning his behaviour.
Lead lawyer Bruce Castor said that no member of the former president’s defence team would do anything but condemn the violence of the “repugnant” attack, and “in the strongest possible way denounce the rioters.”
Yet Trump’s attorney appealed to the senators as “patriots first,” and encouraged them to be “cool headed” as they assess the arguments.
At one pivotal point, Raskin told the personal story of bringing his family to the Capitol the day of the riot, to witness the certification of the Electoral College vote, only to have his daughter and son-in-law hiding in an office, fearing for their lives.
“Senators, this cannot be our future,” Raskin said through tears. “This cannot be the future of America.”
Trump attorney David Schoen turned the trial toward starkly partisan tones, the defence showing its own video of Democrats calling for the former president’s impeachment.
Schoen said Democrats are fueled by a “base hatred” of the former president and “seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from the American political scene.”
It appears unlikely that the House prosecutors will call witnesses, in part because the senators were witnesses themselves. At his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, Trump has declined a request to testify.
Presidential impeachment trials have been conducted only three times before, leading to acquittals for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and then Trump last year.
Timothy Naftali, a clinical associate professor at New York University and an expert on impeachment, said in an interview, “This trial is one way of having that difficult national conversation about the difference between dissent and insurrection.”
The first test Tuesday was on the constitutionality of the trial, signalling attitudes in the Senate. Six Republicans joined with Democrats pursue the trial, just one more than on a similar vote last week. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana added to the ranks of Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
The House prosecutors argued there is no “January exception” for a president on his way out the door. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., referred to the corruption case of William Belknap, a war secretary in the Grant administration, who was impeached, tried and ultimately acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.
Trump’s case is hardly a run of the mill corruption charge, he said, but incitement of insurrection. If Congress stands by, “it would invite future presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability.”
In filings, lawyers for the former president lobbed a wide-ranging attack against the House case, suggesting Trump was simply exercising his First Amendment rights and dismissing the trial as “political theatre” on the same Senate floor invaded by the mob.
Because of the COVID-19 crisis, senators were allowed to spread out, including in the “marble room” just off the Senate floor, where proceedings are shown on TV, or even in the public galleries above the chamber. Most were at their desks on the opening day, however.
Presiding was not the chief justice of the United States, as in previous presidential impeachment trials, but the chamber’s senior-most member of the majority party, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
Under an agreement between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the substantive opening arguments will begin at noon Wednesday, with up to 16 hours per side for presentations. The trial is expected to continue into the weekend.
Trump’s second impeachment trial is expected to diverge from the lengthy, complicated affair of a year ago. In that case, Trump was charged with having privately pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, then a Democratic rival for the presidency.
This time, Trump’s “stop the steal” rally rhetoric and the storming of the Capitol played out for the world to see.
The Democratic-led House impeached the president swiftly, one week after the attack. Five people died, including a woman shot by police inside the building and a police officer who died the next day of his injuries.
With Ontario’s COVID-19 state of emergency expiring Tuesday, the province will transition back to the colour-coded reopening plan that eases restrictions based on COVID-19 case counts in respective regions starting Wednesday.
That system has now been modified to allow some degree of in-person shopping at non-essential stores at all levels, including the grey-lockdown level.
The first three regions to enter the green-prevent level on Wednesday will be Hastings Prince Edward, Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington, and Renfrew County and District.
All other regions remain under the stay-at-home order until Feb. 16 and COVID-19 hotspots Toronto, Peel and York regions will be the last to re-enter the framework about a week later, on Feb. 22.
Here is a look at the changes in the framework for stores, organized events, restaurants and bars, personal care services and gyms and other recreational facilities (click image to expand):
The RCMP say six people have been charged with human trafficking over allegations they brought workers into Canada from Mexico to work through their companies.
Police say the foreign nationals entered Canada as visitors through airports in Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton, Ont., and then worked through employment agencies operated by the accused.
A joint investigation by Mounties and the Canada Border Services Agency say these workers were being exploited.
Police say during searches in July and September of 2019 police found about 80 foreign nationals living in places in Hamilton and Milton, Ont., infested with bed bugs, cockroaches and other vermin.
Investigators say some of those employment agencies included Nora Services, Trillium Management and Bryan Enterprise Agency.
The accused are to appear in Hamilton court on March 8.
Christian Vitela, 33, Mario Roca Morales, 47, Cheang Kim, 60, Miurel Bracamonte, 43, Nora Rivera Franco, 36, and Myriam Vitela, 55, all face human trafficking charges.
“The investigation uncovered a group of individuals exploiting foreign nationals, as well as manipulating our immigration systems and processes for personal gain and profit,” Ann Koenig, officer in charge of the RCMP Hamilton-Niagara Regional Detachment, said Tuesday in a release.
The RCMP and CBSA say the investigation continues and more charges are pending.
Ontario will begin to gradually reopen its economy Wednesday starting with three public health units outside of the GTA.
Health units in Hastings Prince Edward; Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington; and Renfrew County will move into the least-restrictive green category today.
That means the province’s lockdown and stay-at-home orders will lift in the regions and restaurants and non-essential businesses can reopen.
On Feb. 15, all remaining regions except three hot spots in the Greater Toronto Area are set to move to the restrictions framework.
The category they are placed in will depend on their local case rates.
Toronto, Peel Region and York Region are expected to be the last to make that transition on Feb. 22, but the province said any sudden increase in COVID-19 cases could delay that plan.
The Public Health Agency of Canada says Ottawa plans to distribute more than 70,000 Pfizer-BiotNTech vaccine doses this week ahead of a major ramp-up, but no Moderna doses are on the schedule.
The agency says 70,200 Pfizer doses are forecasted for delivery to the provinces and territories for the week starting Feb. 8, followed by about 336,000 and 396,000 doses in the final two weeks of the month.
However, its distribution schedule lists no new Moderna shipments beyond Feb. 7, as confusion over deliveries deflates Canadians’ confidence in the Liberal government’s vaccine rollout.
Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, the military commander managing logistics of vaccine delivery for the agency, said Thursday that Canada does not know how many Moderna doses will arrive in the weeks ahead, and the company hasn’t said why it has reduced shipments to Canada.
Pfizer and Moderna are the only two companies to have vaccines approved by Health Canada, though the department is reviewing vaccines from three others: AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Johnson and Johnson.
Weekly projections on vaccine distribution from the public health agency are fluid and subject to change.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has maintained that delivery delays are temporary, and that Pfizer and Moderna tell him Canada is still on track to receive six million doses by the end of March.
Moderna was initially slated to deliver almost 250,000 doses to Canada in the third week of February. The zero deliveries projected for the rest of the month — at least for now — come after a 20 per cent cut in last week’s Moderna shipments.
The blank Moderna schedule also follows Pfizer-BioNTech’s decision to slash deliveries by more than two-thirds over four weeks due to supply constraints.
This week’s 70,200 Pfizer doses fall far short of the 366,000 doses per week originally planned for February, though the expected ramp-up later this month will make up for some of the shortfall.
There were no new vaccines delivered to the provinces and territories on Sunday, leaving a total of 1.2 million doses delivered so far.
Some 340,000 were from Moderna and 858,000 from Pfizer, according to the public health agency.
The provinces reported 11,885 new vaccinations administered for a total of about 1.07 million doses given as of Sunday night.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s announcement of a timeline for ending the province-wide lockdown offers a glimmer of hope for some GTA businesses, but is harsh news for others, business owners say.
For months, retail stores and restaurants in Toronto, Peel and York Region have been surviving on takeout service and curbside pickup only, while hair salons and gyms have had to shutter completely.
“‘Shocked’ and ‘disappointed’ could be the only two words [that can be used] to be polite,” says Annette Palumbo, who has been advocating on behalf of the beauty industry. She is stunned there is still no target date for salons, barber shops and spas to re-open.
“That’s a sad, sad call on the government’s part,” she adds. “To actually believe that people are opening up small businesses and the ones with the highest [safety] protocols are remaining closed?”
The Beauty United coalition estimates that 20 per cent of Ontario’s 3,500 salons and spas will not survive the lockdowns, while many of Ontario’s 32,000 hair stylists have been unemployed all this time.
“Nobody wants handouts,” says Palumbo. “We want to work.”
Today’s announcement also provided no relief for restaurants in the GTA. They will remain takeout-only as long as Peel, Toronto and York are in the grey lockdown zone of the provincial reopening framework.
For smaller retailers, there is a glimmer of hope. The president of the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas (TABIA) expressed optimism about the weeks to come.
In areas returning to the red zone, the province is allowing small business to re-open for in-store shopping, with a maximum 25 per cent capacity inside.
“We’ve been advocating for this for quite some time,” says TABIA president Maureen Sirois. “We know we can open safely and serve our customers safely. We are happy to be able to have them come back into our businesses.”
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote a letter to every MPP last week asking that capacity be set individually for every store, based on 20 percent of its stated capacity under the fire code.
Many business groups are also saying small retailers should have been allowed to be open for the Christmas rush in December, adding they are now just looking forward.
“Ontario’s retail sector needs time to rebuild and it cannot sustain another round of closures,” says Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada. “This speaks to the importance of everyone – government, businesses and citizens alike – working together in the weeks and months ahead to preserve both public health and economic viability.”
The Retail Council of Canada, citing Statistics Canada, says Ontario has lost 150,000 jobs, with a substantial portion of them in retail.
“When you are a small business owner and you have invested your life, your blood and soul into your business, you’ve sold your car, re-mortgaged your home, you’ve applied for every single program out there and you still can’t break even, the frustrations are completely understandable,” says Julie Kwiecinski, director of provincial affairs, Ontario, for the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses.
If Toronto, Peel and York regions move out of the stay-at-home order as scheduled on February 22nd, many of these businesses will have been shut down for 92 days. Recovery won’t be easy and for some it may not happen at all.
VIDEO:
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/02/08/ontario-businesses-react-to-mixed-news-on-covid-19-lockdown-restrictions/
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is questioning Ottawa’s move to require hotel quarantines for international travellers, saying it may harm lower-income Canadians and infringe on citizens’ mobility rights.
Cara Zwibel, a lawyer who heads the organization’s fundamental freedoms program, is calling on the federal government to produce any evidence that returning passengers are breaching the current requirement to self-isolate at home, which she suggests is the only fair basis to toughen the rules.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced more than two weeks ago that travellers flying back from abroad will have to quarantine at a federally mandated hotel for up to three days at their own expense, though he acknowledged that only a fraction of COVID-19 cases appear to stem from overseas trips.
Zwibel suggests that the cost — $2,000 or more, according to the government — could be prohibitive for lower-income Canadians who need to care for sick relatives or receive specialized medical care abroad.
Health conditions that would make isolating in a hotel particularly challenging are another concern.
In a letter to Canada’s transport minister and attorney general, the civil liberties association is demanding Ottawa carve out quarantine exemptions and fee waivers for Canadians who seek to look after loved ones or receive treatment overseas, particularly people in narrow financial straits.
“For these individuals, travel is not a luxury,” Zwibel says in the letter.
“The government’s definition of what constitutes ‘essential travel’ for these purposes will be important.”
Ottawa has not announced when mandatory hotel quarantines will come into effect, one of several measures aimed at choking off viral spread at the border and deterring non-essential travel.
Trudeau announced on Jan. 29 that Canadian airlines had suspended flights to Mexico and the Caribbean until April 30. Residents who do choose to fly abroad now have to furnish negative COVID-19 test results less than 72 hours before departure back to home soil.
Roughly two per cent of cases with “known exposure” have been linked to international travel, and an even smaller proportion in recent weeks, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. However, there is still virtually no testing at the border and many recent cases do not have an identified source.
Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada,” though all rights are subject to reasonable limits.
Senators have agreed to put a bill to expand access to medical assistance in dying to a final vote by Feb. 17, but they’ve signalled their intention to propose substantial amendments.
The agreed date for the vote will leave just over a week for the House of Commons to deal with any amendments approved by the Senate before a thrice-extended, court-imposed deadline of Feb. 26.
It’s a tight timetable that could yet make it impossible to meet the court deadline.
Senators, who began final debate Monday, will begin dealing with the amendments to Bill C-7 on Tuesday.
An amended version of the bill would have to go back to the House of Commons for MPs to decide whether to accept or reject the amendments before shipping it back to the Senate, where senators would have to decide whether to approve the bill even if some or all of their amendments were rejected.
In theory, the bill could bounce repeatedly back and forth between chambers.
The bill is intended to bring the law into compliance with a 2019 Quebec Superior Court ruling that struck down a provision allowing assisted dying only for those whose natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.”
It scraps that provision but retains the foreseeable death concept to set up two sets of rules for eligibility: more relaxed rules for those who are near death and more stringent rules for those who are not.
It would also expressly prohibit assisted dying for individuals who are suffering solely from mental illnesses.
Sen. Marc Gold, the government’s representative in the Senate, acknowledged that some senators think the bill goes too far, while others think it doesn’t go far enough. But he said, to his mind, that divergence of opinion demonstrates that the bill has struck the right balance.
“The bottom line is that it is a reasonable, prudent proposal that achieves a complex balancing of rights … Bill C-7 is neither too hot, nor too cold, but just the right temperature,” Gold said during Monday’s debate.
Gold further suggested that unelected senators should be cautious about tinkering with the bill, noting it was supported by two-thirds of elected MPs from all parties in the House of Commons, giving it “a strong democratic stamp of approval.”
But Sen. Pierre Dalphond, a former judge who sits in the Progressive Senate Group, argued that the exclusion of those suffering solely from mental illnesses is unconstitutional, violating their right to equal treatment under the law regardless of physical or mental disability.
Dalphond said he believes it’s reasonable to propose a sunset clause to put a time limit on that exclusion, giving the government time to come up with guidelines for providing assisted dying to people with mental illnesses.
And he said he’ll introduce another amendment to specify that the ill-defined concept of mental illness does not include neuro-congnitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease.
There is support among senators for referring the bill to the Supreme Court for advice on its constitutionality, both from those who think it’s too restrictive and those who think it’s too permissive.
Sen. Don Plett, leader of the Conservatives in the Senate, questioned why senators are rushing to expand access to what he termed “physician-induced death,” based on “a lower court decision made by one judge in one province” that the government chose not to appeal.
He implored his colleagues to listen to disability rights advocates who have denounced the bill for sending the “harmful and tragic message” that the lives of people with disabilities are not worth living.
Plett argued that extending access before improving palliative care and support services for people with disabilities will make it “easier to die than to live” and doesn’t give vulnerable people a real choice.
Conservative Sen. Denise Batters said it’s “disgraceful” that the government is pushing a bill to expand access to assisted dying in the midst of a pandemic, when vulnerable people are even more “alone, isolated and economically disadvantaged” and with even less access to support services.
She argued that Black, racialized, Indigenous and poor Canadians with disabilities, “people who have been routinely pushed to the margins of our society,” are “crying out to us for help but they don’t want help to die, they want help to live.”
However, Sen. Chantal Petitclerc, a former Paralympian who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, noted that the court ruling to which the bill is responding was triggered by Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, two Quebecers with severe disabilities.
Petitclerc, a member of the Independent Senators Group, said senators can’t ignore the inequalities that exist in society or the lack of support services that can exacerbate suffering.
But she said she believes the government has correctly chosen to permit assisted dying “in order to respect the autonomy of those who choose it freely as a release from intolerable suffering,” rather than prohibit it for all people with disabilities “until all support and all resources are available.”
The Biden administration is set to announce this week that it will reengage with the much-maligned U.N. Human Rights Council that former President Donald Trump withdrew from almost three years ago, U.S. officials said Sunday. The decision reverses another Trump-era move away from multilateral organizations and agreements.
U..S. officials say Secretary of State Antony Blinken and a senior U.S. diplomat in Geneva will announce on Monday that Washington will return to the Geneva-based body as an observer with an eye toward seeking election as a full member. The decision is likely to draw criticism from conservative lawmakers and many in the pro-Israel community.
Trump pulled out of the world body’s main human rights agency in 2018 due to its disproportionate focus on Israel, which has received by far the largest number of critical council resolutions against any country, as well as the number of authoritarian countries among its members and because it failed to meet an extensive list of reforms demanded by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.
In addition to the council’s persistent focus on Israel, the Trump administration took issue with the body’s membership, which currently includes China, Cuba, Eritrea, Russia and Venezuela, all of which have been accused of human rights abuses.
One senior U.S. official said the Biden administration believed the council must still reform but that the best way to promote change is to “engage with it in a principled fashion.” The official said it can be “an important forum for those fighting tyranny and injustice around the world” and the U.S. presence intends to “ensure it can live up to that potential.”
That official and three others familiar with the decision were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly ahead of the announcement, and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Although the U.S. will have only nonvoting observer status on the council through the end of 2021, the officials said the administration intends to seek one of three full member seats — currently held by Austria, Denmark and Italy — from the “Western Europe and other states group” that come up for election later this year.
The U.N. General Assembly makes the final choice in a vote that generally takes place in October every year to fill vacancies in three-year terms at the 47-member-state council.
U.S. engagement with the council and its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has been something of a political football between Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. While recognizing its shortcomings, Democratic presidents have tended to want a seat at the table while Republicans have recoiled at its criticism of Israel.
Trump’s withdrawal from the UNHRC, however, was one of a number of U.S. retrenchments from the international community during his four years in office. He also walked away from the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the World Health Organization, U.N. education and cultural organization, UNESCO, and several arms-control treaties. Trump also threatened to withdraw from the International Postal Union and frequently hinted at pulling out of the World Trade Organization.
Since taking office last month, President Joe Biden has rejoined both the Paris accord and the WHO and has signalled interest in returning to the Iran deal as well as UNESCO.
