Contested Politics and the Communist Visual: A Critical Analysis of John Heartfield\u27s Photomontages at the End of the Weimar Republic

Justin Kauffman, History, Lehigh University Abstract of Master\u27s Thesis, Submitted August 15, 2014:The aim of this thesis is to examine a conflict of Communist politics in the last pre-Nazi years of Germany\u27s Weimar Republic through the photomontages of Communist Party member John Heartfield. The research investigates a moment when a radical Communist artist sacrificed his commitment to party line to reach the leftist masses with his propaganda.In the first part of the thesis, a background on Heartfield is provided to in order to present a trajectory leading up to his propaganda work for the Die Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung (AIZ or Worker\u27s Illustrated Magazine). Following this background, the discussion delves into an analysis of the photomontage in 1930 and 1931 starting with a brief comparison to election posters of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Communist Party of Germany or KPD). This section uses the photomontage visuals and articles written about the medium in order to outline the aesthetic and practical value of the photomontage as an appealing, widespread form of propaganda. In the final part of the thesis, an analysis of Heartfield\u27s photomontages from July 1932 until February 1933 is presented along with the context of political conflict in the KPD. This section starts by exploring the moment in July 1932 when Heartfield went against the KPD party line with a montage that proposed a united front coalition with Social Democrats. In conclusion, the thesis argues that Heartfield\u27s decision to go against party line contributed to the political conflict among German Communists in 1932. Heartfield was willing to undermine short-term changes in KPD policy for the immediate need of reaching his broad audience with what he considered the correct political message

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health