Tangle - Answering our reader and listener mailbag.

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

Every now and again, we have so many reader questions in the backlog that we decide to devote a full edition to address them. Today is one of those days.I love reader mailbag editions because they give us a chance to cover a variety of topics in one newsletter. It can also be fun to answer questions that are a little more personal, or a little outside our standard U.S. politics realm (we love those kinds of questions, so don’t be shy!).In today’s edition, we’ll be tackling a wide range of topics and doing something new: Splitting up some of the answers. You’ll notice that some of today’s questions are answered by Ari, some by Will, and even one by Magdalena. We hope you enjoy this edition, and don’t forget you can always ask us a question by replying to an email or filling out this form.  We just released the next episode of our new podcast series, The Undecideds. In episode 2, our undecided voters primarily talk about Trump’s legal troubles. How do they feel about his alleged crimes? How would him being convicted - or exonerated - change the way they vote? What about his claims he should have immunity as president? You’ll hear how they consider these major themes of the race, and also what they made of Haley dropping out and Biden’s State of the Union Address. You can listen to Episode 2 here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be doing a reader mailbag. That's right. We've got a lot of questions in the tank from readers and listeners, and we just want to clear the decks a little bit. We do this every now and then, you know, where we have so many questions that are in the backlog that we just decide to devote a full edition to addressing, you know, maybe six or seven of them. I love these listener mailbag editions because they give us a chance to cover a wide range of topics all in one newsletter. It's also fun to answer some questions that are maybe a little more personal or a little outside the standard U.S. politics realm. So today we're going to tackle this wide range of reader questions.

We're also going to be doing something new. We're splitting up some of the answers. So I'm here. I'm Isaac. I'm going to be reading the responses to these, but you'll notice that some of today's questions are answered by Ari, by Will, even one by Magdalena. So I'll just call those out when it's actually not me specifically answering the question. And yeah, as always, if you want to get your question answered in one of the podcasts, just write in Isaac at ReadTangle.com. Okay, we're going to start with a question from Mike from Washington. Mike said pretty plainly, I don't think the claim in the 32-hour workweek piece that inflation-adjusted income has decreased is anywhere close to accurate. From 1955 to 2022, real median family income increased from $39,790

to $92,750 in 2022. This is a huge increase. Mike went on to list a few examples here, and he said, I don't know where this idea came from, but it doesn't seem close to true. So fortunately, I did not have to answer this one. This was about something that got published when I was out in Bali working as an editor that week. And so Ari, our managing editor, tackled this response. And this is what Ari said. He said, I'm the one who included this analysis in the newsletter, and I'll be blunt. You're right. I was wrong, and I have some crow to eat. As you said, finding inflation-adjusted average annual earnings for an individual in one source

is challenging, which is why I tried to derive it from available data. I used a three-step process to make the comparison but included two separate significant and pretty embarrassing errors in that process. I've shown and corrected my work below. Step one, get the average income in 1955. The figure I found from the 1955 census was $3,400 and it was simply the wrong statistic. $3,400 was the median income for just men, but women were earning meaningfully less and should have been included as members of the workforce. but women were earning meaningfully less and should have been included as members of the workforce. The statistic for the entire workforce, as reported in that census document and as you found, was $2,323. Step two, I corrected for inflation, so using that calculator and working

from the $3,400 figure, we get to $39,833 in 2024. If we instead work off of your more accurate figure of $2,323, we do indeed get $27,216. Step three, compare it to current earnings, and this is where I made my largest blunder, Ari said. The FRED data indicates that the average hourly earnings for all employees today is $34.69. This is embarrassing, but I made the comparison as if it were an annual figure, $34,690. Even if I'd used the right number from earlier, $27,216, this incorrect figure is still larger, but it isn't the right number. It isn't even close. If you convert the $34.69 hourly wage to annual salary, the right number is $72,155. So you are right. The claim that the average worker makes

less than they did in 1955 is not, as you said, close to true. The only saving grace for the claim from Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, is that his team clarified they were talking about inflation-adjusted pay for non-supervisory production jobs, which is a whole other ball of wax, and a whole new opportunity to wade into a complicated comparison and risk being wrong, which I'll politely decline. So thank you for catching this and for holding Tangle and me to account. Next up is a listener question from Jim in Madison, Mississippi. Jim said, I've seen some stories about the United Kingdom and EU changing immigration and deportation policies. How does the USA's policies compare with the other developed countries' policies? Will, our editor and communications lead, took this question. Will said,

First, let's quickly recap the recent changes to immigration policy in the UK and EU. In December 2023, the British government announced new rules intended to narrow the legal pathways for immigrants to move to the United Kingdom. Immigration to Britain hit a record high in 2022. Net migration was approximately 745,000 people, and the rules unveiled last year are expected to reduce that number by hundreds of thousands. You can read more about the specific changes with a link that we'll put in the episode description. In the EU, the parliament adopted significant reforms to the bloc's immigration system just last week. The Migration and Asylum Pact is a collection of 10 legislative texts intended to help countries experiencing migratory pressure. The new laws

seek to address these developments in a way that spreads responsibility for handling migrants proportionally across EU member states. Now, let's turn to how these immigration systems compare to the U.S. One of the biggest differences that jumped out during research is that the United Kingdom and EU have actually managed to reform their immigration policies in recent years, where it has been decades since the last major reform in the US. One key area of common focus in recent years is an increased focus on physical barriers along borders. While many countries in Europe, especially Britain, have natural water barriers along their borders, physical barriers along land borders have become increasingly common. Turkey built a wall along its border with Syria in 2016. Spain has a border fence between itself and Morocco. Croatia installed a barrier over part of its border with Serbia, and Greece recently

expanded its border fence along its border with Turkey. In the United States, border barriers, in the form of picket fence, concrete levee walls with steel bollards, floating fences, steel bollards, vehicle bollards, and Normandy barriers also exist along the southern border. President Biden has continued with efforts started by Trump to build sections of the border wall that started under Trump. While the rhetoric differs between political parties on the utility of physical barriers as a method of controlling immigration, we've seen both

Democratic and Republican administrations invest in them, an approach shared by European countries. One major difference in immigration policy between Europe and the U.S. is their approach to birthright citizenship status. The U.S. is well known for having birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Most countries in Europe, however, require that people born in their country must meet certain requirements to qualify for birthright citizenship. There's a helpful breakdown for different rules from various European countries that we link to in the episode description and today's newsletter. There are also broader and more philosophical differences in how Europe and the U.S. think about immigration. Historically, the EU has focused more on immigration integration, pathways to citizenship,

anti-discrimination laws, etc. While the U.S. has emphasized immigration control, like border security, detention of unauthorized migrants, etc., particularly since 9-11, in sum, there are some similarities and some differences, with the greatest difference being that Europe has managed to legislate on the issue at all. All right, next up is a question from Dave in the Czech Republic who said, what are the strongest reasons for and against the idea that Putin would invade additional countries once the conflict in Ukraine is settled? All right, so as I see them, the best arguments for and against don't disagree on the facts, but on how to analyze the trends in Putin's behavior. So first, let's start with the argument that Putin would invade

other countries. First, he stated and demonstrated repeatedly that he believes post-Soviet states are under Russia's sphere of influence. Putin has backed the self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Georgia. He's annexed Crimea in Ukraine. He's attacked and occupied eastern Ukraine. He then blamed Western expansionism under NATO for the invasion, which he justified by claiming Russian ethnic ties to Ukraine, denying the Ukrainians as a people, and saying Ukraine brought Russia's actions on themselves by harboring Nazis, it's not hard to

see a similar pattern playing out now against Poland, which Putin has blamed for its invasion by Nazi Germany in World War II and where he is now planning to amass more forces. Meanwhile, in the Baltic states, Putin has voiced familiar concerns about how ethnic Russians are being treated. As with Ukraine in the south of Eastern Europe, Putin is blaming NATO expansionism for Russia's militarization in the north. Poland's president thinks Russia is mounting an attack. Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, thinks he's mounting an attack. Estonia's foreign minister thinks the Baltic states could be under threat within three or four years, and even some Putin allies in Russia are threatening aggression. Taken together, it all indicates the same groundwork that led to Putin's

invasion of Ukraine is starting to be laid in Eastern Europe now. Then there's the argument against it. With Georgia and Ukraine, Putin's invasion rested on the argument that the regions he invaded contained ethnic Russians. He has never made those claims about Poland, which is also a NATO member. And for the countries where he has made those claims, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, they too are NATO member nations. Despite Baltic countries maintaining military readiness as a deterrent, their leadership doesn't expect a Russian invasion. So there may be an element or two in several other countries that mirrors the situation in Ukraine, but there doesn't seem to be a country that contains each one. What's more, Russia has been so occupied by its struggle in Ukraine that even if it does

negotiate a truce today, it simply would not have the capacity to attempt an all-out invasion of another country in the near future. And when you consider that all those possible countries are NATO member states, the idea that Putin would willingly pick that fight is highly unlikely. Personally, while both arguments strike me as strong, it's the latter argument that is simply more convincing. I think Putin is untrustworthy and violent, but I don't think he's stupid. Attacking a NATO member would be stupid. As for other nations, the idea of Russia invading a caucus state at this time seems politically fraught and totally unjustifiable. I interpret every European leader sounding the alarm about Russia not as evidence of the fact,

but as prudent self-defense. And while I don't think we should take Russia's current weakness for granted, I also don't think it's at all likely that Putin follows up what is already a very difficult fight in Ukraine by picking what would be a probably even harder fight elsewhere. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. after this quick commercial break. All right, the next question is from Erez in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey. Erez said, what percentage of journalists do you think would have somewhat similar takes to you if they weren't operating under the various partisan and engagement-baiting incentives that they face? In other words, do you think you are particularly wise and clear, level-headed, like more so than 99.9% of all journalists? Or is it more that you are just

sufficiently capable, free-thinking, open-minded, and above-average intelligence journalist who is free of most of the external biases that other journalists face? So I appreciate the implicit compliments in this question, and I do not think that I am particularly wise or clear level-headed. I think part of my ability to see both sides of an argument and part of the reason I'm open-minded toward a lot of different opinions is that I grew up in a politically diverse place, and I had a lot of experience in my life that made me question my prior convictions. That is mostly just luck, but it shaped me enough that I do think I was probably raised with fewer biases than most other people in this profession. And also, and this is important, producing Tangle every day

has fundamentally changed me. I have become far more open-minded, level-headed, and aware of my own biases just from writing this newsletter every day. That being said, I do think what happens for a lot of reporters is that they are operating with bad incentives and in environments where it's difficult to break free of biases. The New York Times is still one of the great journalistic enterprises on the planet. They break a ton of news and report on some of the most in-depth investigations there are, but they also suffer from a tremendous amount of internal pressure not to buck progressive narratives. The same is true of NPR. That, combined with the fact many media organizations are struggling financially, which makes them want to sensationalize news to maximize traffic and ad

revenue, is a dangerous combination. I've been in environments where I was not sufficiently supported and wasn't able to write the kind of stuff I wanted to. I wasn't above being locked into those situations. Fortunately, we have a good business model at Tangle where I have full editorial control and I'm able to speak freely. It's a true blessing, but it wasn't always like this. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.

All right, next up is a question from Matt, who is writing from Maryland. It's kind of more of a personal question. Matt said, in a growing atheistic world, what motivates you to remain religious? How do those beliefs influence your political beliefs? Okay, so first of all, I love this question. It's fun to answer something that's a little bit, maybe less just, you know, policy, politics oriented. I like answering questions that aren't all tied, you know, directly to our work. Logically, my faith is tied to a belief in, you know, some kind of creator. I think most people who believe in some monotheistic religion are. I've read a lot of books about all different kinds of religion, and I've read a lot of different books about arguments for and against atheism. I've read a lot of books about the afterlife or books about making the case we're just, you know, hairless

chimps and nothing more. There are plenty of great arguments making the point that we simply can't know whether there's a God or not, which I also find compelling. But I find the arguments favoring one, like those articulated by Aquinas, to be the most compelling. Culturally, I grew up as a Jew, and so I have a strong cultural tie to my faith, but that was far from automatic. I declared myself an atheist when I was 13, right after getting bar mitzvahed, and it wasn't until college when I actually tested my beliefs and spent time in more religious communities that my faith and my connection to Judaism actually started to grow. I spent time living in a yeshiva in Jerusalem after college, which

was a transformative experience for me and sent me down a path I certainly didn't expect for myself today. I feel very tied to the Jewish communities and places I've lived, and I'm constantly exploring my own views on religion and, you know, a creator, a higher power. So I certainly wouldn't say any of that stuff is stagnant. But for me, the most powerful thing, and I don't really know how to quite put this, but it's just kind of the magic. I mean, like part of me just wants to say, you know, look around. I know our world is full of hardship and pain and suffering, but faith to me is really just an act of defiant optimism and I subscribe. I just think about all the moments that have happened to me, even in the last few weeks that I refused to chalk up to

some happy biological accident. Uncontrollable laughter with my wife, squeezing into a diner booth with your best friends and sharing a meal, the thrill of discovering a new band, the smell of freshly baked cinnamon bread, the moment at a wedding when the entire room stands up as the bride enters, a friend calling you, the very exact moment you thought of them for the first time in weeks, learning a new skill, you, the very exact moment you thought of them for the first time in weeks, learning a new skill, reading, speaking. Shoot, the fact that I'm going to press send on this podcast and thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are going to read it or listen to it or whatever. I don't know how to quite put it, but I just see a million little miracles stacked on top of each other every day.

And I see the pain too, the tragedy, the disaster, the horror, the pollution and cancer and divorce and war and natural disasters. But that's just all part of the recipe of life. I mean, I believe in the spirit and the soul and the magic of all that pain and suffering and beauty and joy. And fundamentally, I think, you know, our five senses, the ones we have are only capable of capturing so much. So there's just a lot more that we are all missing than we can possibly comprehend. And I find that exhilarating and enticing. As for how all that impacts my political beliefs, it's a lot harder to parse. I mean, I'm sure it impacts them in a million little ways that I don't even understand or acknowledge, you know,

on everything from Israel to abortion to freedom of expression. But fundamentally, I hold with all those views a very strong belief in the idea that our government and our country should be separate from religion. So when I look at policy or political movements, I do try my best to leave my faith aside and focus on what I think is genuinely good governance, good policy, and good for the masses. All right, the next question is from Tim in Arizona. Tim said, in your piece on Elon Musk, you don't mention the most convincing thing he has said, that the census counts illegal immigrants, which ultimately changes the apportionment

of the House and gives Democrats an advantage. Okay, so that is true. I actually wish I had addressed this in the initial piece because a lot of people wrote in about it. And this is one way that loads of illegal immigration could impact our elections. But I want to clearly differentiate that claim from the one I was criticizing, which is that hundreds of thousands of unauthorized migrants are illegally registering as voters for the 2024 election. That is its own claim that warranted a full Friday edition to unpack, and it was the claim Musk made that I was trying to address. But let's address this claim separately. Again, it is true that counting migrants residing in the U.S. illegally as part of the census changes the apportionment

of congressional representatives and affects the way districts are drawn. But Musk has vastly, vastly overstated the impact. My understanding is that Democrats would lose approximately 20 seats in the House if the legals were not counted in the census, and that's also 20 less electoral votes for president, he said in an interview with Don Lemon on March 19th. So the Center for Immigration Studies, also known as CIS, a very conservative group, by the way, estimates that maybe it has changed three seats. And not each seat went from a red district to a blue one. The net impact was one more House seat for Democrats and one fewer for Republicans. one more House seat for Democrats and one fewer for Republicans. As summarized by factcheck.org, quote, looking only at immigrants in the country illegally, the yardstick Musk employed, CIS estimated they were responsible for the redistribution of three seats in 2020. Looking at it in partisan terms, two states with a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican governor, Alabama and Ohio, and one state with a divided legislature and a Republican governor, Alabama and Ohio, and one state with a divided legislature

and a Democratic governor, Minnesota, each had one fewer House seat in 2020 due to the inclusion of immigrants living in the country illegally in population counts. Gaining one extra seat were two blue states, New York and California, and one red state, Texas. In other words, the estimated net impact was that one Democratic state picked up a seat from a Republican state. In case one study's not enough, the Pew Research Center also did their own analysis, reached almost the exact same conclusion, except instead of finding that the extra seat went to New York, they found it went to Florida, meaning the net result would be a one-seat swing to the right. To Musk's credit,

his claim is actually almost right on for legal immigration. CIS did find that solidly Democratic states gained 19 votes based on the residency of legal immigrants. It's possible he saw the study and misremembered it, but it's still a vastly different claim. And tempering that claim further is that CIS characterized the states as democratic, not the districts. The shift at the state level does impact the apportionment of votes in the electoral college, but we wouldn't be able to reach the same conclusion about the shift in congressional districts in the House, which, remember, already has a Republican majority. Of course, migrants here illegally who have children could produce long-term demographic

shifts as those children would have a chance of getting legal status, but that process would take decades. And I don't think Democrats are orchestrating that on the belief that those immigrants will vote for them in 20 years. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, next up is a question from Joe in Nashua, New Hampshire. Joe said, the balanced approach to the newsletter leads me to be less skeptical and to have more than the normal level of trust in the advertising. To what extent, if any, do you assess the legitimacy of the advertising in the newsletter? So this one was actually answered by Magdalene Nair, head of advertising, and this

is what she said. We try to be discerning, yes. We run advertising in Tangle a bit differently than most other newsletters in that we only have one advertiser per edition that effectively sponsors the email. We have clear guidelines in our advertising policy about what we publish, no annoying messages or distracting logos, and who we will and won't partner with. Organizations tied to a political campaign, for example. So right off the bat, we try to hold a high standard that tries to provide a seamless and enjoyable reader experience. Some of you who have been here a while remember that we agonize over whether or not to integrate advertisers precisely because we know readers trust Tangle.

We even put the decision to a reader poll where the overwhelming majority said they wouldn't mind a small amount of ads. In the face of an ever-changing media landscape, we know it's the best business practice to have diversified income streams, and if you'd like to advertise, know it's the best business practice to have diversified income streams. And if you'd like to advertise, you can submit an inquiry with the form in today's episode description. But we know that keeping that trust is paramount, Magdalena said. So you won't ever see us renting space in our newsletter or on our website to annoying programmatic banner ads or pop-ups that we don't have any control over. There's also a clear divide between editorial and sales in that an advertiser can't sponsor a specific newsletter edition because of a topic we're

covering. Isaac and the editorial team generally don't know who is sponsoring that day's edition until after the bulk of the writing is done. When we first started integrating advertisers into our free edition, we perhaps naively thought that we would be able to try some of the products that came through the pipeline. To be totally transparent, that has not happened all too often, except for the newsletters we plug, we read those. And it's not a very realistic expectation as we continue to grow. Short of providing an endorsement through our personal experience, we approach potential advertisers first with skepticism. We research their products as best we can, scan their reviews, and finally check their rating on the Better Business Bureau before agreeing to anything. We've had some missteps along the way, but we've used them to make our

process better. For example, when readers flagged that one of our early advertisers had an FTC lawsuit against them, we quickly pulled the sponsorship and adjusted our vetting process. We also make sure that advertisers generally align with the ethos and spirit of Tangle, which effectively keeps our advertising partners small or medium-sized. And it's great when readers can support them by clicking through or buying their product. Even though we would love the large corporate sum that would theoretically come from such a spot, you won't see a sponsorship from a group like Chevron or Mike Bloomberg anytime soon. All right, and this is the last question we're going to answer for the pod. This

one comes from Jana in Florida. Jana said, why do you think older generations tend to skew more conservative while younger generations tend to skew more liberal? This one was answered by Ari, our managing editor. Ari said, there's an old joke in American politics. If you're young and you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart. And if you're old and you're not a conservative, you don't have a brain. The conventional wisdom is that as people get older, they tend to just become more conservative in a non-political sense, more risk-averse, or just careful about not fixing things that aren't broken. On one hand, that makes a good deal of intuitive sense to me. But on the other hand, it may not be true anymore. This era of fixed

political identity, where if you see yourself as a liberal or conservative, then you're less and less likely to change, may be turning that conventional wisdom on its head. According to recent polling, a smaller portion of seniors are leaning to the right while a smaller share of young adult voters are leaning to the left. It goes even further. Seniors are breaking for Biden while Gen Z could actually break for Trump. So why the change? Here's my best guess. Politically speaking, conservatism has traditionally been tied to a protection of the way things are and have worked, be those things economic or cultural or governmental. Liberalism connotes the opposite, actively seeking changes to the status quo or societal norms. For many of today's seniors in the baby boomer generation, the liberalism of their youth was

defined by a time where cultural change was particularly powerful. Whether it was the civil rights era of the 60s or the counterculture and pro-war movements of the 70s, a lot of the baby boomers that increasingly comprise more and more of the senior vote are people who were culturally liberal at that time. And unlike in the past, that political identity is staying somewhat fixed. I can even see that same dynamic playing out with young adults, too, just in reverse. When I graduated high school, gay rights were an enormous marker of cultural liberalism, which was in turn enormously popular among young adults, Ari said. Today, with ever-present culture war issues aside, the social issues of sexual tolerance and racial acceptance that were so important to young liberals in my generation are mainstream, so I'd expect to see people defining what it means to them to be a liberal or a conservative change, making conservatism a better option for younger voters that share

those mainstream ideas. That could also mean that by the time I raise my own kids, the conventional wisdom of today will be a thing of the past. All right, that is it for today's listener mailbag. Thank you guys for listening in. Don't forget, if you want a question answered, you can write to me, Isaac, I-S-A-A-C at readtangle.com. As you listen to this, I'm probably in Vancouver on stage giving a TED Talk right now. So things are crazy over in our world, but we will be back here in your ears on Monday.

So have a great weekend. We'll see you then. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kabak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle,

please go to retangle.com and check out our website. We'll be right back. about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province.

Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.