CATARINA MAIA

 .

As vacinas e 

o espantalho das patentes 

O problema do atraso no fornecimento de vacinas é um problema de capacidade de produção, não de abuso de posição dominante no mercado. A gestora e professora universitária Catarina Maia, membro da Comissão Executiva da Iniciativa Liberal, diz que as vozes que se erguem por esta solução estão a agitar um espantalho, que é sexy de empunhar, alimentando-se do desconhecimento do público sobre ele, no pano de fundo de um capitalismo pintado como opressor e mortífero – no fundo, um exercício fácil de demagogia 

𝓝𝓾𝓶 𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓰𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓒𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓸 𝓐𝓯𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓸, 𝓪𝓭𝓿𝓸𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪, 𝓿𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓮́ 𝓪 “𝓵𝓸́𝓰𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸”, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮́ 𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸 “𝓵𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼” 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓾𝓶 𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸. 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓰𝓸 𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓪, 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪́𝓼, 𝓾𝓶 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸, 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓘𝓷𝓮̂𝓼 𝓐𝓵𝓿𝓮𝓼 𝓜𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸, 𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓳𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓮 𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓮𝔁𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓸 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓲 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓱𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 (𝓮, 𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪́, 𝓭𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓿𝓲𝓭-𝟏𝟗). 𝓔𝓷𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓶 𝓸𝓫𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓿𝓲𝓭-𝟏𝟗, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓿𝓲𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓻-𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓪𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓪́𝓿𝓮𝓲𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝔃 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼. 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓿𝓲𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓯𝓲𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓑𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝓑𝓵𝓪𝓼𝓲𝓸, 𝓶𝓪𝔂𝓸𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓝𝓸𝓿𝓪 𝓘𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓸𝓾 𝓓𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓼 𝓟𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓲𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓾𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓾 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓢𝔂𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓪 𝓮 𝓿𝓲𝓬𝓮-𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓔𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓾.

𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓳𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮 𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓮𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓵𝓸́𝓰𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓭𝓸. 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓮́𝓶, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼.

𝓐𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓸𝓬𝓾𝓹𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓪 𝓸𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓾́𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓵𝓸𝓰𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓬̧𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎. 𝓐𝓸 𝓵𝓸𝓷𝓰𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓸, 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓸 𝓢𝓐𝓡𝓢-𝓒𝓸𝓥-𝟐 𝓯𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓾𝓶 “𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓰𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓪𝓵”, 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓫𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼. 𝓛𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 (𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓪 𝓦𝓗𝓞 𝓒𝓸𝓿𝓲𝓭-𝟏𝟗 𝓣𝓮𝓬𝓱𝓷𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓰𝔂 𝓐𝓬𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓟𝓸𝓸𝓵), 𝓮 𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓿𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓮𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵 – 𝓸 𝓣𝓡𝓘𝓟𝓢. 𝓘𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓮𝓻𝓪 𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓸, 𝓪𝓯𝓲𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓿𝓪-𝓼𝓮, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼, 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸.

𝓝𝓮𝓷𝓱𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓾𝓶 “𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸”, 𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼. 𝓐 𝓜𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓪 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓼 𝓽𝓸𝓶𝓸𝓾 𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓻 𝓳𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻 𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓾𝓼 𝓯𝓪́𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓿𝓲𝓭-𝟏𝟗. 𝓞 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓸́𝓻𝓬𝓲𝓸 𝓐𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓩𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓪/𝓞𝔁𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓾-𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓵𝓾𝓬𝓻𝓸 𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓸𝓾 𝓾𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓾́𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸. 𝓐 𝓟𝓯𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓻/𝓑𝓲𝓸𝓝𝓣𝓮𝓬𝓱, 𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓾-𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓲́𝓿𝓮𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸.

𝓐𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓹𝓪̂𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓸 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸 𝓸𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓪́𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓯𝓮𝓽𝓪 𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪. 𝓒𝓸𝓶 𝓿𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓰𝓮𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓾𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓾́𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼, 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓪𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓸𝓫𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼. 𝓝𝓪 𝓤𝓔, 𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓸𝓾 𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓬𝓾𝓼𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓮 𝓪 𝓒𝓸𝓶𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓔𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓲𝓪 𝓮 𝓪 𝓐𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓩𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓪, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓷𝓾 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓲𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸: 𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼, 𝓽𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓮 𝓷𝓮𝓰𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓾𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓼.

𝓞 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪́ 𝓷𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼. 𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓮̂𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 – 𝓮́ 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓶𝓡𝓝𝓐 𝓸𝓾 𝓾𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓸𝓵 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓲́𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓲́𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪. 𝓣𝓸𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪 𝓔𝓤 (𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓪 𝓢𝓹𝓾𝓽𝓷𝓲𝓴 𝓥, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪 𝓗𝓾𝓷𝓰𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪 𝓪𝓭𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓻) 𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓮𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓷𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓰𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓿𝓮́𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓮𝔁𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓫𝓲𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓷𝓸𝓵𝓸́𝓰𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓵𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓶 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓼 (𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓼) 𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓶 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼. 𝓟𝓸𝓻 𝓼𝓮𝓾 𝓵𝓪𝓭𝓸, 𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼. 𝓤𝓶𝓪 𝓿𝓮𝔃 𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼, 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓮𝔁𝓲𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼.

𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓪 𝓷𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓮̂𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓳𝓪́ 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓮̂𝓶 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓪𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓿𝓮́𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓼: 𝓪 𝓢𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓯𝓲 𝓿𝓪𝓲 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝓶𝓲𝓵𝓱𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓟𝓯𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓻/𝓑𝓲𝓸𝓝𝓣𝓮𝓬, 𝓮 𝓪 𝓝𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓾 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓑𝓲𝓸𝓝𝓣𝓮𝓬𝓱 𝓪 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓪́𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪 𝓢𝓾𝓲́𝓬̧𝓪.

𝓐𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶, 𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓬𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓫𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮 𝓪𝓭𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪 𝓐𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓩𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓪, 𝓪 𝓜𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓪 𝓮 𝓟𝓯𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓻/𝓑𝓲𝓸𝓝𝓣𝓮𝓬𝓱 (𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓮) 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓶 𝓪𝓾𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓸 – 𝓮𝔁𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓮́ 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲́𝓿𝓮𝓵 - 𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓪𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸-𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓪𝓼.

𝓐𝓺𝓾𝓲 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓮́ 𝓯𝓪́𝓬𝓲𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓽𝓮̂𝓶, 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸́𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼, 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓻 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓮̂𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓯𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻. 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓷𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓸 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓻 𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻. 𝓞𝓻𝓪, 𝓼𝓮 𝓸 𝓷𝓮𝓰𝓸́𝓬𝓲𝓸 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸, 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓱𝓪́ 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓪. 𝓞𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸 𝓪𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸, 𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼 – 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓷𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓶𝓪̃𝓸 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲́𝓿𝓮𝓵 𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓰𝓮𝓸𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓰𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓷𝓸 𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓮, 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓾𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼.

𝓝𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓲𝔁𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓼𝓸 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓸𝔃𝓮𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪 𝓮́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼, 𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓷𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼. 𝓓𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓮̂𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓾𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓽𝓪𝔁𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓭𝓾𝔃𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓻 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓹𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓸 𝓮 𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓪 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓮𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪 𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓬𝓻𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪? 𝓐 𝓐𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪́𝓵𝓲𝓪, 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝔁𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓸𝓾 𝓸 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓻 𝓽𝓻𝓮̂𝓼 𝓿𝓮𝔃𝓮𝓼 𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓹𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓶 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓫𝓪𝓲𝔁𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓸𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪.

𝓗𝓪𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓪́ 𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓸 𝓪𝓻𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓮𝔁𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓻 – 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓶 𝓾𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝔁𝓬𝓵𝓾𝓲 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸. 𝓢𝓮𝓶 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓻 𝓮𝓶 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓼, 𝓷𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓾́𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓯𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓮̂𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓬𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓮 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓲𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝔃𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓸𝓼. 𝓟𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝟏𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓸𝓵𝓮́𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓽𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝟏 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓪́ 𝓪𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸. 𝓣𝓪𝓵 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓾𝓶 𝓮𝓷𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓘&𝓓. 𝓢𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼, 𝓪̀ 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓸𝓵𝓮́𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪 – 𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓲𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪.

𝓝𝓸 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸, 𝓷𝓪 𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓵 𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓮𝓶 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓿𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓪𝓼 𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓾𝓬𝓸 𝓸𝓾 𝓷𝓮𝓷𝓱𝓾𝓶 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 – 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓸𝓰𝓸, 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓭𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓾𝓼𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓷𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸. 𝓐𝓼 𝓿𝓸𝔃𝓮𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮 𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓾𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪 𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓸, 𝓪 𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓾𝓶 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪́ 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸. 𝓟𝓸𝓻𝓮́𝓶, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓱𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓯𝓪́𝓬𝓲𝓵 𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝔁𝔂 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓾𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓻, 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸-𝓼𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓮𝓵𝓮, 𝓷𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓸𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓻 𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓲́𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓸 – 𝓷𝓸 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓸, 𝓾𝓶 𝓮𝔁𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓲́𝓬𝓲𝓸 𝓯𝓪́𝓬𝓲𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓰𝓲𝓪.

* Gestora e professora universitária, membro da Comissão Executiva da Iniciativa Liberal.

IN "EXPRESSO" - 16/02/21

.