Experts have warned the UK government that COVID-19 antibody tests lack “adequate assessment” to be rolled out nationwide. The tests could also reportedly create an unnecessary burden on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

Bad Timing

This comes during a pivotal period in the country, as lockdown restrictions are being lifted. Despite these warnings, the government has rolled out millions of tests to NHS Trusts nationwide. They have also rolled out the tests around care homes, whose primary patients are the elderly.

What’s more, the UK is set to lift even more lockdown restrictions on July 4. However, it must take precautions to ensure that, unlike the United States, reopening efforts do not cause higher reinfection rates.

Why Dentists?

Healthcare workers on the frontline are at the highest collective risk of exposure to the virus. This is according to statistics curated by the US Department of Labor. In particular, dentists are at the greatest risk in both exposure to the disease and physical proximity to others.

Dr David Denning is a Professor of Infectious Diseases in Global Health at the University of Manchester. He believes that dentists can be a great asset in the fight against the virus transmission.

Furthermore, he explains, the many unanswered questions of the SARS CoV2 infection are an “intrinsic problem”. Yet, “many individual patients do want to know if they have had COVID-19 or not.”

Can Antibody Testing Reduce Coronavirus Transmission?

Some scientists have argued that testing dental patients for COVID-19 transmissibiity could be a great way to reduce reinfection rates.

Co-founder of DenScreen, Dr. David Denning states that this new system will “assist dentists in getting back to work safely.”

“If only IgG (immunogloblulin test) results from symptomatic SARS CoV2 PCR positive patients obtained at least 2 weeks after infection are taken into account, the sensitivity of the best fingerprick and some of the ELISA methods is 95-97% and specific approximately 99%,” he wrote in a letter in the peer-reviewed, British Medical Journal.

The letter was in response to criticisms against the scientific inadequacies of “rapid roll out of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing.” Indeed, the novelty of the virus has created scientific dispute about the proper methods for testing the British population.

“While not perfect, this is a high level of performance and much higher than many of the routine tests we currently do and substantially better sensitivity that SARS CoV2 PCR approximately 70%,” he continued.

“There are now some data indicating that asymptomatic SARS CoV2 infection usually generates an IgG antibody response, but sensitivity is lower. Also antibody levels fall over time, and so repeat testing many be indicated,” Denning argued.

He added that “we are missing data from children, many immunocompromised groups and those of different ethnic backgrounds.

“Without prospective studies these data are unlikely to be generated in the UK, because of the necessary linkage with medical records required for analysis, which requires explicit consent and is unattainable for a devolved laboratory system as the PHE (Public Health Emergency) is currently structured without substantial resource put into gaining consent.

“The UK’s tight rules on consent for this sort of linkage data is an impediment to data generation for public health benefit, as in the current crisis,” the letter reads.

Using Dentists to Collect Valuable Data

Although dentists face the highest risk of exposure to the virus, millions of people visit dentists every year. For example, in the UK, about 20 million people visit a dentist annually. In other words, dentists make a great addition to frontline workers who can test a significant part of the population

For Denning, the plan is “to collect all the data antibody data and basic demography to better understand the background infection rates in dental workers and in patients.”

To illustrate, Dr. Gareth Elgan Rees, a dentist in England, has introduced the system in practice.

“As our dental practices open their doors to patients again, we have to prepare and protect both our staff and patients from an invisible enemy,” he asserted.

“Dentists can now screen patients to see who is high or low risk and do a ten minute antibody test to see who has already had COVID-19 and is non-infectious,” he added.

“Everyone’s risk of carrying the coronavirus can be checked – whether low, medium or high. Dentistry can be very safe for patients with good systems in place.”

L'articolo How Dentists on the Frontline Can Reduce Coronavirus Infection Rates proviene da InsideOver.

Angela Merkel promised on Wednesday that developing EU-China trade relations will be a top priority for her government once it takes over the EU presidency on July 1.

“We Europeans will need to recognize the decisiveness with which China will claim a leading position in the existing structures of the international architecture,” Merkel said in a video speech to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung think tank. The German Chancellor also added that the EU wants to maintain a “critical constructive” dialogue with Beijing.

Good News for China

EU leaders are scheduled to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in the German city of Leipzig on September 14.

Marcus Schürmann, the CEO delegate of German Industry and Commerce in Japan epitomises that the pandemic is changing trade relations between China and the EU. With Japan pressuring its 32,000 companies manufacturing their goods in China to return home and diversify their branches all over South-East Asia, China is under immense pressure to find replacements for this loss.

These China-EU trade talks are good news for China, which has seen foreign direct investments within its borders decrease by 11% this year. With the Japanese and American governments offering billions of dollars to firms that choose to relocate home, China is in desperate need to maintain and build its commercial relationship with the EU.

Big Tensions Remain

The China-EU relationship is, nevertheless, fraught with diplomatic and economic tensions. Last year US President, Donald Trump imposed a record $7.5 billion punitive tariff on European agricultural and aircraft products in retaliation against the EU for subsidies for European aerospace manufacturer Airbus. These punitive measures have forced the EU to turn to the world’s second largest economy for financial survival. Likewise, Merkel’s home nation of Germany boasts the world’s biggest trade surplus and is highly dependent on other countries buying their products. With both US tariffs and a trade surplus, Germany needs China to survive.

Despite the EU’s financial dependence, it is cautious about becoming too dependent on China. China, on the other hand, has made efforts to attract foreign investments from the EU. Jörg Wuttke, President of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, said last month in Beijing that the coronavirus pandemic had “tremendous impact” on European investment in China.

“The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has undertaken a lot of efforts to signal to the EU that they want to help us. Of course, now, we wait for the implementation of all this.

“They have to realize that the competition globally for investment from European companies will be more severe,” he continued. “We will definitely look at more options. The China-only story, I think, is over.

“China is just a really effective economy, has wonderful infrastructure, has the educated people, so to relocate, for example, from a province of Guandong – which in itself has the GDP of Russia – or from the city of Shenzhen – which has the GDP of South Africa – to other places is a major challenge,” Wuttke added.

“But I can imagine that diversification will happen in areas where our home governments in Europe will feel that they have to be closer to home, with pharmaceuticals mentioned as one of them.”

Reservations about China

In May, an EU-backed inquiry into the coronavirus was submitted to the World Health Organisation, prompting criticism from China who claimed it was being victimized by the 116-country coalition. Reservations about China’s lack of transparency during the pandemic are a great deterrent towards forging EU-China trade relations.

“China’s actions during and after the COVID-19 would result in further disagreements and fragmentation within the European countries [on] how to settle the relations with Beijing,” argued Velina Tchakarova, Head of Institute at the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy.

Looming in the background are China’s new security laws in Hong Kong, where human rights groups have accused the Chinese government of torturing anti-Hong Kong protesters. Global mistrust for China remains a stumbling block for Merkel’s vision of a successful EU-China trade relationship.

‘We Cannot Walk Away from China’

“It will make us rethink, but at the same time we cannot walk away from China,” an EU diplomat said earlier in May. “All of our economies rely on supply chains that run back to Wuhan and beyond. We’ve always said no one’s interests are going to be served from not trading with them. So that problem will always be there.”

With US tariffs against China and the EU, it was inevitable that both ostracized nations would form an alliance in order to survive the post-coronavirus world. Yet, Merkel’s hope that a trade relationship would empower the EU to enforce better human rights and other ethical policies from China is an unattainable dream. China’s long-term financial strategies, having been built on the denigration of human rights, would require profound institutional and governmental changes to successfully implement strategies that place human rights, climate change and global health concerns at the forefront of its success.

Boasting ambitions as great as its US $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, China’s main concern remains power and financial prosperity above all else.

L'articolo EU-China Trade Relations are a Priority for EU, Merkel Insists proviene da InsideOver.

A coalition of 116 countries have backed Australia’s calls for an independent inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic, causing tension between Australia and China.

What is Australia Asking For?

Australia began calls for an independent inquiry into the pandemic last month. Fifty four out of 55 African Union (AU) member states soon backed the inquiry, alongside the full 27-member European Union (EU) states. Brazil, Mexico, Russia and Great Britain, have also co-sponsored the motion submitted to the World Health Organisation Assembly (WHO) earlier this week.

On Wednesday United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added the US to the list of countries backing the inquiry, following the examples of India, Canada, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey and New Zealand.

The draft resolution asks for a comprehensive, impartial and independent inquiry into the international response to the pandemic. It also calls for a review of the lessons learned from the WHO’s response, and the global response, to the COVID-19 health crisis.

Inquiry is an ‘Appropriate’ Response: Australia’s FM

Australia’s Foreign Minister Marise Payne has defended the inquiry as an “appropriate” response.

“I think what it illustrates is a broad view that given the experience of COVID-19 – over 300,000 deaths, millions of people around the world losing their jobs, the impact on economies from one corner of the globe to the other – that there is a strong view that it is appropriate to engage in a review of what has happened,” Payne said.

“I think it’s a win for the international community,” she added.

China Retaliates

In retaliation, China – Australia’s biggest trading partner in exports and imports – increased tariffs on Australian barley imports by up to 80 percent. Although the inquiry does not mention China by name, China also banned beef imports from four Australian companies. Australia, however, has refused to back down despite China’s foreign minister Wang Yi accusing the nation of politicizing its inquiry.

“We are standing our ground on our values and the things that we know are always important,” Scott Morrison, Australian prime minister said in response to the tarrifs and bans.

“We draw very clear lines about things that are very important to us, as does the Chinese government,” he continued.

Australia Warns China to Back Down on Trade War

Australia’s Agriculture Minister, David Littleproud also warned China that it could take the tariffs and bans to the World Trade Organisation if needed.

“We will prosecute that case on behalf of Australian exporters,” Littleproud affirmed China. “If those that we’re prosecuting against don’t understand it, we’ll take it to an umpire for them to understand.”

The inquiry – which is a joint Australian and European Union plan – has seen the EU take part in the global conversation. Virginie Battu-Henriksson, EU spokeswoman for public affairs, argued that: “we need to have the support of all the major players, and China is one of them.

“For us, it is not the moment for us to enter any kind of blame game as we’ve seen in narratives from one part or another of the world,” she pontificated.

The Case for Impartiality

The EU and Australia have defended the impartiality of this inquiry. They claim it is not a political campaign against China.

Yet, is an inquiry consisting of 60 percent of the nations of the world one that can be conducted with full impartiality and independence? This is an especially grave question, because a precedent has been set for blaming China for the global spread of the virus. With the US’ involvement in the inquiry coalition, following Trump’s consistent anti-Chinese pandemic rhetoric, there doesn’t seem to be hope for a truly independent inquiry.

“China’s contributions to fighting the pandemic are paltry compared to the costs that they have imposed on the world,” Pompeo said during a news briefing on Wednesday. He maintained that China must offer greater transparency to the rest of the world, and criticised its response so far to the pandemic.

Perhaps most worryingly for China, countries have not explicitly stated whether the results of the inquiry would lead to big global policy and law changes: changes that may be punitive towards China. Historically, geopolitical affairs have never been handled impartially, favoring, instead, nation-states with the most power. It is no surprise then that China is fearful.

L'articolo 116 Countries Back Australia’s Call for an Independent Coronavirus Inquiry proviene da InsideOver.

Millions of people in Wuhan are being tested for the coronavirus after six new cases were reported in the central Chinese city last week. They are the first reported cases in 35 days, after a 76-day lockdown. None of the cases were imported from overseas, leading to fears of a new outbreak of mass infections at the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Details of the Testing

The city-wide nucleic acid testing are set to be carried out over ten days, with Wuhan authorities promising to test their 11 million residents. The scheme is also set to collect data on people who are asymptomatic, but may still be spreading the virus.

Experts, however, have criticized these measures as overzealous.

“In communities without infections, there is no need to screen everyone,” Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention told CCTV.

‘It’s Not Over Until it’s Over’

Germany and South Korea, previously glowing examplars of effective pandemic control, have also seen renewed outbreaks after easing lockdown restrictions.

“It’s not over until it’s over,” South Korean President, Moon Jae-in said last week, in response to the emergence of a new cluster of coronavirus cases in the capital, Seoul. Experts have warned governments that re-opening countries must be handled with extreme caution and care to prevent a new rise in domestic transmission rates.

Fasehun Diipo, an NHS nurse working with coronavirus patients told InsideOver that: “There will most likely be a second wave of the pandemic in Europe, as countries lift their lockdowns, especially in light of the laissez-faire attitude with which the easing of the lockdowns are being implemented.

“Europe is rushing to lift its lockdowns,” he continued. “For example Germany has restarted its football league which will pull a lot of crowds. With schools reopening as well, children will not respect social distancing rules, and teachers cannot be expected to maintain total enforcement of the rules. All these bits and pieces are what will make the second outbreak possible, if stringent measures are not put into place.”

Shulan is Also Having a COVID-19 Comeback

Wuhan is not the only region in China experiencing a rise in domestic transmissibility. According to Chinese state media, Shulan, a high -risk region in China, has seen 15 new cases since last week. Shulan has now locked down all residential areas, banned all non-essential travel, and closed schools again. Other places with high public gatherings, such as restaurants and transport stations have also been closed.

“There is no vaccine yet for this disease: with trials still ongoing, we have not yet heard of a successful confirmation of vaccine trials,” Mr Diplo said.

“Without a viable vaccine we don’t have immunity, apart from any natural immunity that has developed in some people. I believe there should be a systematic release of the lockdown, but countries are rushing to bring their economy back up and save the financial sector. Countries are trying to become productive again, and that’s totally acceptable.

“Looking at the positive side, however, there is still a ban on inter-country flights, with only essential travel being allowed. That might just curtail the resurgence of a second wave, even for a little bit. The next two weeks will be very crucial for every country in the European world. We will need to follow, and to monitor, very accurately for a second outbreak of the virus, so that we can go on lockdown again if need be.”

‘This is a Wake-up Call’

For Diipo, more needs to be done by European governments to protect their citizens.

“This is a wake-up call for the government,” he explained, “because we can see that the government was not earlier prepared for this. We never really thought it would escalate to this stage, but now we are better prepare for a possible second wave.

He explained that he believed wide-scale tasts of populations are possible in countries. Using Britain as an example, he said: “Test numbers have been improving so far. There is an average testing facility within cities. You can now easily get a location where you can go to get tested. Frontline workers have virtually all been tested, so testing is not as difficult, or as impossible in the UK as it previously was during the peak of the pandemic. Testing, so far, has been a success in the UK, and it has helped us to progress positively. Testings are also a benchmark for us in the case of a second wave,” he added.

“The health secretary said earlier that the UK hoped to achieve 100,000 tests a day. With a population of about 66 million people, 100,000 tests daily is too low in comparison. He further stated that he would invite organisations in the private sector into the conversation to see how they can collaborate with the government to achieve that. We may not have reached the 100,000 mark, but we are progressing every day. There is no decline or derailment in testings at this moment in time.”

Coronavirus Cover-Ups in China

In the same week, a whistleblower report sent to NTD News shows that there has been a cover-up of coronavirus numbers in China’s hospitals. Chinese officials have previously been accused of covering up the severity of the virus by publishing inaccurate infection and death figures.

Asymptomatic cases are not counted as confirmed cases, despite asymptomatic carriers’ possession and transmission of the virus.

“It is important we tread carefully about countries like China (and Iran), because of the political sanctions upon these countries, and the tensions between China, Iran and the US,” Diipo said, adding that “The coronavirus has come to stay. It has come to change the way we live, the way we relate. We need to stay healthy, safe, exercise, and take our vitamins, because the coronavirus is going to be around for a very long time.”

L'articolo Wuhan Mass Tests 11 Million Citizens for Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

Recovered coronavirus patients are retesting positive for the virus according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC).

Does COVID-19 Reactivate?

As of Tuesday, May 5, 277 recovered patients who originally tested negative for the virus retested as positive during a subsequent test. The KCDC previously feared that the COVID-19 virus became reactivated after formerly going dormant.

On Tuesday the country’s infectious-disease experts concluded that the positive test results were false: a result of fragments of the virus that remained in patients’ bodies showing up in test kits. There was no live virus present in all 277 cases.

False Positives?

Dr. David Denning, Professor of Infectious Diseases in Global Health at The University of Manchester’s Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, told InsideOver that the method of testing for the virus in formerly infected patients can produce false positives.

“Almost testing for the SARS CoV2 is done by detecting RNA (nucleic acid) using PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction), not by viral culture,” Denning said.

“PCR is highly sensitive and in the category level 3 labs in which it is done, it is possible some low level lab contamination of RNA occurred, which produced false positive results.

“It is equally likely that patients recovering from infection have a few residual cells containing dead virus that are picked up by the PCR assay,” Denning added.

This refutes theories in the scientific community that the coronavirus can be reactivated or reinfected in former patients. Withal, the false positives seem to be good news for the future of herd immunity, as countries worldwide begin to lift quarantine restrictions.

There are now over 3.6 million cases of coronavirus worldwide, as of May 5, 16:00 BST. Nearly 1.18 million people have, in turn, recovered. One of the first nations to report a COVID-19 outbreak, South Korea has reported only 254 deaths as of May 5. Out of more than 10,800 confirmed cases, the country has seen 9,283 recovery cases so far.

This is because the country enforced one of the world’s most effective pandemic strategies, using contact tracing and widespread testing. Although it did not close most venues, the country’s leaders implemented mass social distancing guidelines to keep people apart.

The Future of Herd Immunity

Denning remains cautious about the future of herd immunity. “It is likely that symptomatic patients with COVID-19 develop partial or complete immunity to SARS CoV2,” he said.

“One way this is measured is with neutralising IgG antibody in blood. Other arms of the immune system are probably important, including saliva antibody (sIgA), T cells and probably natural killer cells.

“These parts of the immune system are a little hard to measure in terms of documenting herd immunity,” he continued, adding that “complete immunity means no chance of re-infection. Partial immunity means a possible chance, if exposed to lots of virus, and/or a milder infection. The term herd immunity would apply to both.”

Herd Immunity Isn’t Enough

Like other practices executed to defeat the virus, herd immunity is not a complete strategy on its own. Denning argues that the success of herd immunity will rest in “sustained immunity”.

“It is not clear to what extent those with asymptomatic SARS CoV2 (i.e. without the disease COVID-19) develop immunity and whether this immunity is partial or complete,” Denning said.

“It is also not clear how sustained immunity will be over time – other coronavirus immunity lasts a few months or years,” he added.

Experts around the world have warned of a second wave of the coronavirus as countries relax their lockdowns. As the search for a vaccine continues globally, experts also remain cautious and pessimistic about finding a vaccine soon. They have also called for renewed efforts towards identifying possible cases, tracing contacts, and monitoring symptoms.

L'articolo Why are Recovered Coronavirus Patients Retesting Positive for the Virus? proviene da InsideOver.

US and foreign officials have said that President Donald Trump and his top aides are working behind the scenes to sideline the World Health Organisation (WHO), following the 60-day hold on US funding to the WHO implemented last week.

Trump accused the WHO of failing to accurately communicate the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, a decision which, according to Trump, led to the most severe outbreak of the virus on US soil. The White House blamed the WHO for a “lack of transparency and chronic mismanagement of the pandemic,” including in its list of complaints the WHO recommendation to keep US borders open following the outbreak in Wuhan.

White House attacks against the WHO have spotlighted institutional problems within the United Nations organisation as a whole.

The Trump-WHO War

Created on April 7, 1948 during a post-war fervor for global consciousness and global health, WHO states that its goal is “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”

A subsidiary of the United Nations, its self-identified goal is to “detect and respond to acute health emergencies” and protect people from said emergencies by “identifying, mitigating and managing risks”. Its values demand fairness and impartiality towards every nation and global citizen.

WHO Praise for China

A WHO statement released on January 30 of this year praised the “leadership and the political commitment of the very highest levels of Chinese government, their commitment to transparency, and the efforts made to investigate and contain the current outbreak”. Yet accusations of dishonesty to the WHO, and to the global community, have followed China since it revealed the virus outbreak in late December, 2019.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, was accused of showing partiality to China, and taking China’s word as fact, without carrying out investigations of his own. In early February, a week after labelling the outbreak in China a PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern), Ghebreyesus argued against global travel restrictions.

Travel restrictions against China “can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit,” he said.

“Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves,” he continued.

Although some experts have argued that Ghebreyesus followed correct procedure, Trump capitalized on the Director-General’s advice not to close borders. On April 19, the Washington Post revealed that, despite Trump’s assertions that he was misled by the WHO, there were more than a dozen American government officials, many of them from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working in the Geneva headquarters of the WHO, who communicated real-time information of the outbreak in China to Trump.

Furthermore, Trump himself has refused to openly criticize Chinese leader Xi Jinping, with whom he has a personal relationship. In late January, he tweeted: “It will all work out well. On behalf of the American people, I want to thank President Xi.” The United States’ President had also recently thanked China for “their efforts and transparency” in dealing with the pandemic.

‘Get That Vaccine’

Trump’s criticisms against the WHO are hypocritical and self-serving, but they illuminate deep political and financial discrepancies within the international body.

In an interview with CNN last week global business magnate and Microsoft founder Bill Gates was adamant that “China did a lot of things right at the beginning.”

“Like any country where a virus first shows up, they can look back and see where they missed some things,” he continued, while adding that “some countries did respond very quickly and get their testing in place and they avoided the incredible economic pain, and its sad that even the US, that you would have expected to do this well, did it particularly poorly.”

The multibillionaire concluded by asking nations to “to take the great science we have, the fact that we’re in this together, fix testing and treatments and get that vaccine.”

After the United States, Bill Gates is the WHO’s biggest funder. Through three organisations created or funded by Gates: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the WHO received more than $474 million in 2017, in contrast to the $401 million provided by the US in the same year.

But Gates is not the only big-source funder of the WHO. Other vaccine-creators and Big Pharma groups funded the WHO this year, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novovax and Nosocomial Vaccine Company.

The precedent was set during the aftermath of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic when an investigation into the WHO revealed that many scientific experts who had advised the then-WHO Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan to prematurely declare the H1N1 outbreak a pandemic were funded by Big Pharma and major vaccine-makers. Chan’s decision would lead to billions of premature governmental spending on vaccines that were not needed, because of minimal global infections.

All PHEIC-ed Up

While health officials and scientists continue to debate whether an earlier declaration of a global pandemic would have made a difference to the management of the outbreak, they are adamant that the WHO’s guidelines on declaring a pandemic be overhauled. After the H1N1 pandemic fiasco, the WHO revamped its guidelines, using instead a PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) method.

The WHO would not label the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic until March 11, causing confusion among government and health officials worldwide. In response to using the PHEIC label, WHO spokeperson, Tarik Jasaveric said on January 30: “There is no official category (for a pandemic).

“WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases — that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic) — that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009.”

After an emergency committee meeting on January 22, 8 days before the PHEIC declatation, another WHO spokesperson had said: “at the time of the first meeting not all members of the committee felt that there was adequate evidence/information to support recommending declaration of a PHEIC”.

Is Criticism of the WHO Legitimate?

The WHO’s inability to make a definitive declaration on the coronavirus was widely criticized by scientists and health officials. Health officials accused the WHO of misleading them, and misleading the public. Others questioned the political motivations behind the WHO’s lack of transparency.

David Heyman, who worked for the WHO for 22 years told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in February that the form and nature of the PHEIC needs to be reconsidered.

“There’s confusion around the world about the declaration. “What does it really mean and why does it always appear to be delayed rather than on time?”

A recent internal audit also portrayed the organization in a negative light. The audit stated that the WHO’s Health Emergencies Program, the division responsible for the global coronavirus outbreak, is chronically underfunded. The program, the audit recounts, has repeatedly posed “severe” and unacceptable” hazard levels to the organisation as a whole.

As of May, 2019, 59 out of 90 recommendations given by internal auditors were uncompleted, including 38 “high-significance” reforms, some of which were accused of suffering “low implementation efforts”.

Even worse, the audit warned of a rise in allegations of internal corruption, detecting multiple schemes aimed at defrauding the organisation of large sums of money.

Can We Still Trust the WHO?

The biggest problem the World Health Organisation faces are corruption and lack of transparency. Dr. Kamradt-Scott, in a recent British Medical Journal article, called for greater transparency in how the WHO decides to what constitutes a public health emergency.

“Until there is increased transparency around [emergency committee] deliberations, questions about irrelevant considerations, undue influence and political interference will continue to arise,” he wrote.

“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition,” the WHO’s Constitution reads. Yet, political and financial motivations have left the World Health Organisation unwilling to follow its own constitution. As such, we the people, can no longer trust that the WHO has our best interests in mind.

L'articolo Can We the People Still Trust the WHO? proviene da InsideOver.

Sweden’s controversial pandemic-fighting strategy is beginning to yield results, according to its top epidemiologist. Anders Tegnell, the lead architect of Sweden’s “trust-based” pandemic-fighting strategy said that confirmed cases and deaths in the country are beginning to stabilize.

‘The Situation is Stable’

“In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau [in new cases], and we’re already seeing the effect of herd immunity. In a few weeks’ time, we’ll see even more of the effects of that. And in the rest of the country, the situation is stable,” Tegnell said.

Tegnell also added that modelling data suggests that 20% of Stockholm’s population is already immune to the virus.

The Controversy of Herd Immunity

Like most areas of research into the virus, the science of COVID-19’s herd immunity is still being researched. Many scientists argue that herd immunity cannot work without a vaccine.

“Herd immunity is not this magical number where once you reach that point nobody else gets infected,” said Shane Crotty, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California.

“It would no longer be a full-blown epidemic once you get to herd immunity. The virus would still spread, it would still infect people, it would still kill people. It would just be a less common event.”

Current estimates predict that herd immunity will slow the spread of the virus once 50% to 70% of the global population become immune.

Does COVID-19 Reactivate?

Earlier in April, however, Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that the coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have previously been cured of the disease, after 51 new cases of possible reactivation were seen in the country. The same phenomenon has been seen in China, as scientists struggle to identify the reason why. One theory has attributed these reactivation cases to incosistencies in test results.

The question remains: if the virus can reactivate in former patients, can herd immunity be viable without a vaccine, as Tegnell claims?

Group of Swedish Scientists Say Country Needs to Get Stricter ASAP

Although Tegnell boasts that Sweden’s controversial pandemic strategy is proving effective, global health experts (including Swedish experts) have warned that it is too early to conclude the success of this highly risky method. Last week, 22 high profile Swedish scientists penned an article in the Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, urging Swedish politicians to implement stricter restrictive measures. They stated that Tegnell’s methods have failed.

Tegnell is ‘Playing Russian Roulette with the Swedish People’

For Marcus Carlsson, a mathematician at Lund University, Tegnell’s approach is a “mad experiment with 10 million people.”

“At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster.”

Carlsson further criticizes Tegnell as: “playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population.”

Sweden is currently seeing huge spikes in infection rates among children and the elderly, with the elderly also seeing high fatality rates.

In an article with science journal Nature, published on April 21, Tegnell acknowledged that, according to Swedish law, a strict lockdown cannot be legislated in the country. By law, Swedes are supposed to bear the personal responsibility of social distancing, he explained.

“The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility.

Tegnell: ‘No Legal Possibility’ for a Lockdown in Sweden

“It clearly states that the citizen has the responsibility not to spread a disease. This is the core we started from, because there is not much legal possibility to close down cities in Sweden using the present laws. Quarantine can be contemplated for people or small areas, such as a school or a hotel. But [legally] we cannot lock down a geographical area,” he pronounced.

Asked for evidence concerning his trust-based approach, Tegnell replied: “It is difficult to talk about the scientific basis of a strategy with these types of disease, because we do not know much about it and we are learning as we are doing, day by day.

“Close down, lockdown, closing borders — nothing has a historical scientific basis, in my view. We have looked at a number of European Union countries to see whether they have published any analysis of the effects of these measures before they were started and we saw almost none.”

Sweden’s COVID-19 Death Toll

In the last 14 days, Sweden has reported 1,250 deaths. Neighbors, Denmark, Finland and Norway have reported 166, 109 and 86 deaths respectively. At 1,250, Sweden’s total fatality rate is more than three times the combined total of its three neighboring countries.

Both scientific data, and scientific experts, call into question Tegnell’s claims of success. Tegnell, however, is adamant that figures prove the trust-based system’s efficacy. The epidemiologist stated that he does not believe his method poses any risk to the Swedish people.

“The public-health agency has released detailed modelling on a region-by-region basis that comes to much less pessimistic conclusions than other researchers in terms of hospitalizations and deaths per thousand infections,” he said.

“There has been an increase, but it is not traumatic so far. Of course, we are going into a phase in the epidemic where we will see a lot more cases in the next few weeks — with more people in intensive-care units — but that is just like any other country. Nowhere in Europe has been able to slow down the spread considerably.”

Sweden has now begun countrywide immunity tests. With Stockholm up to an alleged 20% herd immunity, only a longitudinal study can assess whether the trust-based system is successful. Presently, there are too many uncontrolled variables in Tegnell’s methods to believe that his strategy is yielding good results. The world’s salvation rests, regardless, in the development of a vaccine.

L'articolo How Effective is Sweden’s Controversial Pandemic Strategy? proviene da InsideOver.

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has predicted that there might be a global famine in the future as a result of COVID-19. In an address to public representatives and officials, she urged her nation to produce food and to keep sufficient stock of food grains in the country.

Hasina: ‘There May be a Global Famine’

“There will be a shortage of food due to coronavirus. In future, there may be a global famine,” Hasina said on April 20, adding that “if we can produce food and preserve it, then we won’t fall into that famine. Rather, we will be able to help many others. We have to take those steps from now on. Let there not be an inch of land left without farming,” she added.

But in a world of adequate global food supply, how did we come to face the threat of famine so quickly?

Food Supply Without Food Security

On January 12, 2006, the Wall Street Journal ran an article warning us of a major supply chain disaster in the event of a pandemic. A low supply of drugs and hospital necessities was said to promote cost efficiency, to the detriment of any possible pandemic outbreaks.

“An adequate supply of food does not in itself guarantee household level food security,” the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations wrote in a 2018 report.

By March 2020, following an unprecedented global pandemic, the UK was left with only a few weeks to supply its farms with harvesters — and its people with fresh food. Various travel restrictions, enforced to stem the migration of the coronavirus between European borders, prevented seasonal fruit from reaching the United Kingdom.

Britain’s Country Land and Business Association (CLA) went on to call for a “land army” of British volunteers to harvest the county’s fruits and vegetables. CLA President, Mark Bridgeman stated that the country was facing a labor shortage of up to 80,000 harvesters, while the international charity Concordia Volunteers placed that figure at 90,000 harvesters.

The year before, the UK’s fruit farming was dependent on the 98% of fruit pickers who came from abroad – most from Romania, Bulgaria and other parts of Eastern Europe. By spring 2020, seasonal harvesters were unable to make the trip into Western Europe, because border closures within Eastern Europe were preventing air and land travel out of the region.

In April 2020, Anthony Gardiner, marketing director at international farming business, G’s, would spend £40,000 to charter a flight transporting 150 Romanian fruit pickers into Britain.

“The last time we had a majority of British people picking in the fields was at the very end of the 1980s,” he explained. “You have got to have some people who are experienced and know what they are doing. They will help bring the newcomers up to pace. Our hope is that this year we will have two-thirds of our workforce from Britain,” he continued, “but you need an experienced core for the newcomers to learn from. It is not just picking. You need knowledge of food safety to do it properly.”

Earlier in April, experts had warned that the UK was would be forced to dump up to 3.8 million tons of produce if harvesters were not immediately employed.

Britain’s COVID-19 fruit dilemma was simply a symptom of a wider, deep-seated global challenge: the world’s food supply chain creates short-term efficacy, with no long-term solutions.

The Precariousness of Food Supply Chains

There is enough food to feed the global population, yet the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the wide-scale precariousness of food availability. Consumers panic buying left supermarket shelves all over the world empty for weeks in March and April. In Europe, supermarkets were forced to enforce purchase limits and restrictions, as consumers sought food for the long term in supermarkets stocked only for the short-term.

Using a “just in time” (JIT) inventory method, our food supply chain supplies food to populations just before they need it. This reduces the need to store surplus food in warehouses, factories, supermarkets, silos and more, which would cost a lot more money. The just in time inventory method increases financial gain, saving costs by cutting out the storage portion of a food supply chain. To work successfully, the JIT method needs to be synchronized perfectly, and food suppliers must be able to predict consumer needs. But pandemics — and other global disasters — are hardly predictable.

During disasters, consumers’ unconditional demand system becomes wildly unpredictable. Using an unconditional demand system to measure the interdependent relationship between food and non-food products, what food consumers need becomes dependent on the context of each historical moment. Presently, the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, supermarket workers, food truck drivers, food factory workers and so on will determine how much essential staff avoid becoming infected with the virus. This in turn determines how much of the food supply within every just in time inventory reaches the general public.

“We do not see a supply shock in the sense of the availability,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist at the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.

“But there could be a supply shock in terms of logistics, not being able to move it from point A to point B. This is something new and very difficult to predict. It’s that uncertainty that right now is the biggest danger.”

The unconditional demand system becomes another portion of the supply chain that must be synchronized perfectly, along with just in time inventory, if our food supply chain is to work efficiently. With just one portion of the supply chain disrupted, food shortage can become an immediate reality for millions — and even billions — of people.

Food Nationalism in a Globalized Pandemic

As the UK struggles to harvest its bounty this month, Germany, Spain and the US are also struggling with food distribution. In manufacturing, food factories in South Africa, India, the United States, New Zealand, China and Canada continue to shut temporarily, as the number of coronavirus cases rises among staff.

Despite ample global supplies, it is not just individuals hoarding food. Discussions in the global public sphere over a possible rise in food nationalism are rising. Last month, Russia’s Agriculture Ministry proposed setting up an export quota of 7 million tonnes of grain for the next three months.

“This measure, if approved by the government, would cover the main grain types, including wheat, rye, barley and corn. It would help ensure the stability in the domestic food market,” said the minister in a statement released on March 20.

In Kazhakstan food exports including onion, buckwheat, and vegetables, were stopped between March 22 and April 15.

A rise in food nationalism is a prescient fear, because of the levels of food insecurity it would bring to nations worldwide.

A side effect of overzealous globalization, the sudden nationalization of a fully globalized food industry would likely lead to food shortages, malnutrition, and possibly famine, for the majority of the world’s citizens.

‘A New Era of Responsible Consumption’

Following pressure from the US farm lobby for government purchases, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun purchasing meat and milk to maintain the country’s food chain supply. Disruptions in the supply chain, because of the pandemic prevented ranchers and farmers from supplying their produce to consumers, leading to significant food waste.

USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue explained that: “we want to purchase as much of this milk, or other protein products, hams and pork products, and move them into where they can be utilised in our food banks, or possibly even into international humanitarian aid.”

Unilever Chief Executive, Alan Jope, has predicted that the COVID-19 pandemic would “herald a new era of responsible consumption” for food and other consumables.

Facing Reality and Prioritizing Food Storage

As of April 21, the coronavirus now has more than 2.5 million recorded cases and over 174,000 deaths.

Our current global food supply chain system is currently unsustainable. It is based on the financial tenet that short-term profits are more valuable that the protection and preservation of human life.

We must now implement a long-term system that prioritizes food storage — as was the case with traditional, localized farming for millennia.

This new system must recognize that inadequate healthcare, logistics and infrastructure – combined with the unpredictability of consumer demands — are the biggest threat to our food supply chain today. A sick population and complex barriers towards transporting food globally will, quite simply, lead to starvation and chaos in the long run when disaster strikes.

Our global food supply chain must be revamped and made more resilient if we are to survive.

L'articolo How the COVID-19 Pandemic Could Lead to Global Famine proviene da InsideOver.

Nine Russian military planes landed in Italy on March 22 in an aid operation to the coronavirus pandemic in Italy.

From Russia With Love

“From Russia with Love” — as coined by Moscow —the Ilyushin Il-76 transport planes carried medics, medical supplies and equipment for diagnostics and disinfection as well as healthcare specialists in infectious diseases from Russia.

Italians Are Not Satisfied by the EU’s Coronavirus Response

A recent poll by Monitor Italia concluded that 88% of Italians think that the European Union has not done enough to assist their country. The same poll revealed that 67% of Italians now believe Italy’s membership with the EU to be a disadvantage — a major rise from 47% in November.

As of March 25, Italy has more than 75,000 cases of coronavirus, nearly as much as China’s 82,000 cases. The country has suffered more than 7,500 deaths, resulting in a fatality rate of 10%, more than double the global 4.5% fatality rate. Over half of the world’s coronavirus death toll has occurred in Italy and Spain, as their death tolls top the global rates.

Italy’s Chief of Defense Thanks Russia

“I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of the entire Italian people for Russian assistance at such a difficult moment,” Italy’s Chief of the Defense Staff, General Enzo Vecciarelli, who personally received the emergency aid said.

In Italy, hospital and medical staff are unable to meet up with patients’ medical needs. France and Germany initially refused to send face masks and other medical equipment to Italy, explaining that these supplies were needed in their countries. Although both countries later lifted these restrictions, with Paris sending Italy 1 million masks and 200,000 gowns, the EU, however, was unable to successfully communicate its u-turn.

“On the issue of solidarity, we had a narrative weakness,” an Elysee adviser told reporters. “Europe hasn’t, as a group, communicated enough on the concrete efforts it was making at the local or regional level towards one another. Germany has sent masks to Italy, France has sent masks to Italy, as many as China has so far.”

Germany is Also Helping Italy Cope With Its Crisis

On March 24, German hospitals with spare beds accepted their first Italian patients,” the adviser to President Emmanuel Macron continued. “A lot has been done, so we need to get out of this Europe-bashing, because that’s not right.

“Mistakes were made for sure, there was some flip-flopping, hesitations, but that’s the case everywhere in the world. When we see what’s going on in the United States today, Europe is not the continent that’s the least organised.”

With EU integration and cohesion currently dishevelled, Russia, Cuba and China have been accused of taking advantage to further their political aims. On March 23, the Kremlin denied that its aid was a plot to manipulate Rome to help lift EU sanctions on Moscow, sanctions imposed in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea.

“We’re not talking about any conditions or calculations or hopes here,” Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov explained. “Italy is really in need of much more wide scale help and what Russia does is manageable,” he said.

“This is all about perception,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Italian Institute of International Affairs in Rome. “This medical help from Russia is nothing compared to the 750 billion euros of assets the ECB is going to buy. But it’s very hard to convey the importance of that to the public.”

Anti-Pandemic Efforts Double as Soft Power Moves

On March 22, more than 50 Cuban doctors and paramedics arrived in Milan to help a coronavirus-hit Italy. Today, the Cuban Medical Brigade is present in a total of 59 countries worldwide. Like Russia, the Latin American island has been accused of using its anti-pandemic efforts as a tool for lifting decades-long US sanctions against it.

One Cuban official described US sanctions as “the main obstacle not only to respond to major health crises like COVID-19, but the main obstacle to the country’s development at any area.”

“The lifting of the blockade against Cuba would have an extraordinarily positive impact on Cuba and mostly in the health sector, which has been one of the most damaged areas since the establishment of the blockade almost 60 years ago with more than 3 billion in economic losses,” the official added.

China, on the other hand, has not been subtle with using the pandemic to strengthen diplomatic and financial relations with Italy. President Xi Jinping, in a March-telephone call with Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, reiterated that China wants to build a “Health Silk Road” to fight Italy’s pandemic-battle. Defying EU and American allies, Italy was the first G7 nation to endorse China’s $900 billion “One Belt One Road” New Silk Road project last year. At the signing ceremony with President Jinping, Prime Minister Giuseppe said that the agreement would “build a better relationship” between China and Italy.

Time to Work Together for the Greater Good

As leaders used the pandemic to forge diplomatic relations, the global, financial, health and humanitarian costs of Covid-19 grow increasingly higher, ensuring there would be no nations to lead if political chess games are not put aside for the greater good. A true measure of anti-pandemic global unity can be seen with Cuba, whose efforts in global healthcare has been proven in its decades-long consistence for promoting global and almost-free healthcare.

The mental strain the virus has wrought on Italy’s national identity cannot be left to be soothed by countries who stand to gain huge financial and political rewards at the dismemberment of the European Union. The EU must begin to effectively communicate its extensive assistance to Italy. At the same time, the Italian people must not give in to propaganda targeted against their own best interests.

L'articolo Anti-EU Sentiments Up in Italy as Russia and China Offer Coronavirus Aid proviene da InsideOver.

Economic forecasters have predicted that US unemployment rates in the months to come will exceed those of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Forecasting the second quarter of the year, the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis President James Bullard said last week: “We’re putting this initial number at 30 percent; that’s a 30 percent unemployment rate.”

Bullard also predicts that GDP in the United States will drop by 50 percent.

The Great Recession of 2008

The Great Recession of 2008-2009 was a historical event in global politics. Despite warning signs, and red flags thrown up by a few economists, the 2008 Recession shook many “policymakers, multilateral agencies, academics and investors,” according to Sher Verick and Iyanatul Islam at the International Labor Office.

In a paper entitled “The Great Recession of 2008: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses,” the warning signs included “large current deficits in the US, UK and other advanced economies that were being financed by the excess savings of emerging economies and oil exporters (the global current account imbalance); loose monetary policy (most notably in the US in the wake of the mild recession of 2001); the search for yields and a misconception of risk; and lax financial regulation.”

How Covid-19 is Impacting the Global Economy

Speaking about the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the global economy today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “Since German unification, no, since the Second World War, there has been no challenge to our nation that has demanded such a degree of common and united action.”

In the international community, talks of war reparations against China are taking place. Leaders in Beijing have been accused of misinforming the world about the epidemic that began in Wuhan, and suspected of possible unprofessional procedures at a laboratory in Wuhan that led to the outbreak of the virus.

Like the 2008 recession, the coronavirus pandemic took the world by surprise. The pandemic has left countries worldwide fighting a potential recession, as governments employ a quasi-shutdown of businesses and economies to plateau the spread of the virus all over the globe. This is far more dramatic than 2008: it is almost unprecedented.

Massive Rises in US Unemployment

The economic shutdown has seen nearly 3.3 million unemployment claims made in the United States in the past week. Before the coronavirus, the US Department of Labor’s highest record for unemployment claims made in a week was 695,000.

Following shutdown procedures enforced by countries worldwide, the world has seen a corresponding plunge in business revenue and a record spike in unemployment. As of March 31, the coronavirus has infected nearly 800,000 people worldwide, resulting in more than 40,000 deaths in 202 countries, areas and territories worldwide.

“Without question, we are going to be in a recession, if not a depression for the second quarter going into the third quarter,” said economist Andrew Busch, adding that “When we reopen the economy, we will be entering a vastly different world.”

Busch said this recession is going to hit less developed economies particularly hard.

“I worry significantly about places like India or Bangladesh or Pakistan, any of the other smaller less developed countries that are out there,” he said.

$2 Million for Every Life Saved

Ethical questions about whether we should prioritize human life over money are questions that remain taboo in the public sphere but the argument will increasingly rise to the surface in disquieting ways. In a paper published on March 29, economists Martin S. Eichenbaum, Sergio Rebelo and Mathias Trabandt asked: “what policies should the government pursue to deal with the infection?”

“Containment policies that reduce consumption and hours worked” are successful in preserving human life, they argue.

“By reducing economic interactions among people, these policies exacerbate the recession but raise welfare by reducing the death toll caused by the epidemic. We find that it is optimal to introduce large-scale containment measures that result in a sharp, sustained drop in aggregate output.

“In our benchmark model, when vaccines and treatments don’t arrive before the epidemic is over and healthcare capacity is limited, optimal containment policy saves roughly half-a-million lives in the U.S.”

Furthermore, every life saved from possible infection in the United States costs an average of $2 million to the American economy, Eichenbaum predicts.

Could Other Governments Do More?

Although the American, Danish, Canadian, Irish and British governments are currently relieving businesses by paying workers’ salaries during the shutdown, many other governments worldwide have not offered this economic relief to workers. In Sicily, the lockdown announced on March 12 has deprived millions of a steady income. Last week, residents began looting supermarkets after pressuring them to release free food to the community.

“We have no money to pay, we have to eat,” an alleged looter stated.

In India, where most citizens are manual laborers living day to day, the lockdown threatens social cohesion. The possibility of riots, looting and social upheaval is another financial threat to countries that do not offer their workers a living wage to acquire food and basic amenities during the lockdown.

Today’s economic crisis is deeply rooted in weaknesses in global public health and the global social safety net. The steep plunge in business revenue worldwide is revealing all the leaks in the ship that were being papered over by a philosophy of infinite growth. The many facets of the potential 2020 recession are too interconnected and too complex for a simplistic understanding of the issue, but reflecting on the successful social and economic policies which were taken during the last four global disasters is a step in the right direction.

For every global citizen, the consequence of failure is too high to afford.

L'articolo How This Potential Recession is Different Than Past Economic Downturns proviene da InsideOver.