Reportage / Society 27.11.2020

Resilient: An Italy That Will Not be Broken

The wind blows softly, it is the beginning of spring. Undisturbed, it enters the main nave of the church and moves over the empty pews, cutting through the silence which echoes mutely all around. Gently, it caresses the flames and…

Andrea Indini

Marco Gualazzini

The wind blows softly, it is the beginning of spring. Undisturbed, it enters the main nave of the church and moves over the empty pews, cutting through the silence which echoes mutely all around. Gently, it caresses the flames and bends them towards the tabernacle.

It is but a moment, imperceptible. Outside San Lorenzo, the residents of Manerbio, a small village nestled along the river Mella, are still locked inside their homes. The tangle of streets leading up to the churchyard are deserted. Everyone has been confined to their homes in order to avoid infection causing even more deaths. And in the silence of their rooms they can only mourn those who did not make it: those who caught the coronavirus and took it with them inside the casket. They were not even given a funeral. They were taken away by army trucks to be unloaded in crematoriums in neighbouring regions suffering less losses. Their last prayers were recited in their rooms, almost whispering, looking out at horizon under the lingering grey sky.

Those days seem far away. And yet the coronavirus tragedy is not yet over. People are feeling a lot more discouraged. It is hard to react to an emergency which seems to not want to abate. Walking along Via Parma your gaze will stumble on advertising panels which look out of the ordinary. Their size is the one used by the big brands. Yet the cheap paper is what we would expect to find along our walks, capturing our attention when we line up waiting for a traffic light which never seems to turn green. However, these are not advertisements. They are men and women, portrayed in their stillness. They are looking beyond the camera lens. We have no way of knowing their thoughts, but their eyes express peace. Pain and desperation seem distant.

“I still remember those days… we felt completely lost,” says Alessandro in the “Libro nero del coronavirus”. “We did not know what to do because we did not realize the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately we came to understand it later on.” Those who had to move on, outliving their loved ones, did so with strength and courage .

In Nembro, a small village in the Seriana valley a few kilometres from Bergamo, a doctor with a hoarse voice continued to visit his patients, taking into account that he might also get sick and die. He’s been caring for them for thirty years, he can’t just abandon them in the moment of need.

“We haven’t buried anybody for ten days,” whispered the priest during the blessing. For a village like Nembro, which counted hundreds of coronavirus victims , it was almost a miracle. A sad miracle, yet still a miracle.

 

Between the second and third week of March the victims had already amounted to 60. By mid-April, two months after the pandemic broke out, the total was 150. “If you think that the mortality rate expected in a year is 10 out of every 1000, “ continues the GP, “Nembro should have registered between 110 to 120 deaths per year, so roughly 10 per month.”

I stayed away from my children for 30 days, “ writes anaesthetist Francesca Serughetti in the book “Libro nero del coronavirus”. “When I played with them in the garden, with my mask on, I would always smile because I didn’t want them to know how serious the situation was. But just seeing them run to me and race to show me what they had made also made me want to smile. “ Then, in the evenings, in the flat she had been given, with her husband hospitalized and far away from her children, she would feel lonely and on the verge of breaking down. The following day however, she would always go back to the hospital to help out. She finishes off by saying “ We will probably pay for this further on, when the tension eases and maybe something hidden in our subconscious will lash out.”

L'articolo Resilient: An Italy That Will Not be Broken proviene da InsideOver.

On 17 November 2019, the first case of COVID-19 was reported in China. The media began talking about “a strange pneumonia”, which was gradually infecting the inhabitants of Hubei. Nobody could have imagined what was about to happen in the months to come.

The virus moves rapidly, too rapidly. Chinese leader Xi Jinping declares war on the coronavirus “demon,” however China’s efforts – too late and insufficient – are unsuccessful in stopping contagion. In just a few months the coronavirus hits Germany, Italy, India and the United States. Whereas in the 14th century it took the plague 16 years to reach Europe, COVID-19 travelled the same route in just a few months. Times have changed and trade between countries, even very distant countries, is increasingly frequent, and especially fast.

And so the virus was free to spread.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the pandemic: “In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of cases, the number of deaths and the number of affected countries climb even higher,“ announced General Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, adding that “The WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction. We have therefore made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic. Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly.”

And so COVID-19 became a global issue. To this day, this is what we know about the virus. This and little else. We can trace its origins and its circulation, however we do not know how long it will be before we get rid of it.

Yet History can be of help to us. An article which appeared on May 10 identified two fundamental moments which determine the end of a pandemic “The medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes.”

What point are we at now? It is hard to say for certain. Last summer it looked like the virus had decreased in force and appeared less dangerous. From mid-May to the end of September, infections were in the order of a few hundred / thousand per day, intensive care units were stable and deaths at a minimum.

During the past weeks however, following the European trend, the number of people infected in Italy has soared to over 11,000 (of which 95% without symptoms as declared by virologist Giorgio Palù), intensive therapy units are slowly filling up again and the number of deaths appears stable. The current situation cannot be compared to that of last winter, as Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte also explained: “It is not March, we have to make adequate and well-thought choices”.

To this day, the government’s objective has been to contain the virus in such a way that it impacts health institutions like a constant small wave and not like a tsunami with a devastating effect. Because maybe the best thing to do is learn to live with the virus, mitigating it as much as possible and reducing to a minimum its impact on hospitals.

The second and maybe more brutal manner of declaring the end of a pandemic is when the population, tired of the epidemic, decides to simply live with the virus. According to Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian quoted by the New York Times, this could be the case with COVID-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by socio-political processes.”

The first thing which needs to be done to accelerate the end of the coronavirus pandemic is to chronicle what is happening in a clear manner and without giving in to useless alarmism. We are undoubtedly dealing with a complex virus, however, COVID-19 is not the bubonic plague.

Moreover, the latter which on many occasions decimated populations throughout the world, teaches us something extremely important: diseases come and go. Sometimes in mysterious ways. The “black death” has not even entirely disappeared, it has only momentarily retreated: “In the United States – reports the New York Times, “infections are endemic among prairie dogs in the Southwest and can be transmitted to people.”

Recently, cases have also been reported in China. “The plague” – points out Giuseppe Pigoli in I dardi di Apollo (Utet) (“Apollo’s Darts” ed.n) – “was never completely eradicated. In the year 2000 a WHO report listed over 34,000 cases in 24 nations over a 15-year span. The 1990s especially witnessed a resurgence of the infection, to the point that it has once again been included in the category of re-emerging illnesses.”

The Spanish Flu

Many have compared COVID-19 to the Spanish flu which, between 1918 and 1920, infected over 500 million people, killing (according to some estimates) 50 million. One hundred years later, we still do not yet know where the virus originated. There are diverse hypotheses: some believe it initially broke out in Haskell County in Kansas and was brought to Europe by American soldiers, while according to others it was widely spread by 96,000 infected Chinese workers sent to the Western front during the First World War to help English and French troops.

As Pigoli points out in the above-mentioned volume, “the illness initially appeared as a “banal” influenza: temperature, aching joints and weakness. However in just a few days the clinical picture underwent a dramatic change: the temperature rose drastically, mucus and blood appeared in the lungs causing patients to “drown” and bringing people, who until only a few days earlier had appeared healthy, to a rapid death”. This description reminds us a lot of COVID-19.

Contrary to what one might think however, it was not the more fragile and elderly people who were most affected, as is usually the case with coronavirus, but men who were generally healthy. Tired, dirty, and worn out by the mud in the trenches, the soldiers became the virus’ main target with hundreds of thousands wiped out.

In May 1918, death rates peaked to 70%. It was the start of the massacre: upon returning home, the veterans brought the disease with them, infecting relatives: “Accounts describe how funerals were celebrated continually. People wore protective masks, entire families fell ill and were confined to their homes with law enforcement watching their doors”.

Two years later, the Spanish flu suddenly disappeared. Pigoli points out that “viruses survive by camouflaging themselves to escape from antibodies. The history of these mutations is full of episodes which clearly show how this infectious agent is almost invincible and how, despite every year health authorities prepare new vaccines, occasionally virulent epidemics which are very difficult to control occur, such as those which broke out in 1957, 1968 and 1977”.

Viruses, moreover, come and go. And as Andrew Nikiforuk wrote in the Fourth Horseman, they are “a mutating reminder of how life is”.

Translation by Audrey Sadleir

L'articolo When Will COVID-19 Finally End? What History Teaches Us proviene da InsideOver.

The first phase of this world-changing pandemic ended up with two clear winners: China, which got to whitewash its image via a world-extended humanitarian effort that proved fundamental for the promotion of the so-called Health Silk Road, and Turkey, which got to extend further its influence over the Balkans, the Muslim world and Central Asia.

US and Russia Get Involved

The United States tried to sabotage China’s unexpectedly quick recovery by sending tons of aid to the European Union – the two countries’ main battlefield – and by promoting a war of narratives. Russia, for its part, opted for an initial isolationist policy and started to reply to the help requests of its allies and strategic partners at a later stage, after having understood the danger of Turkey’s incursions into the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

But concurrent with the evergreen law of historical recurrence, Russia is used to feeling the blow and drawing back at first only to later react with a game-changing total mobilization effort. That’s why, possibly, it has been the Kremlin that put an end to the vaccine race on August 11 by announcing the registration of the successfully-tested Sputnik V.

One Billion Doses

The announcement was made on August 11 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and received a mixed welcome. The West immediately started questioning the reliability and effectiveness of the Russian vaccine, which has been symbolically named Sputnik V after the Soviet space program, whereas the main leaders of the Global South made contact with the Kremlin to arrange the first pre-orders.

By the end of August the Russian government confirmed that it had received orders for about one billions doses of Sputnik V – all of them coming from the developing world, from Brazil and Mexico to India and Philippines. The European Union members and most Western-aligned countries are likely to put the political interest before their citizens’ well-being, and accordingly they are going to wait for an American-made, EU-made or Israeli-made vaccine, but in no way will doing so actually work against the Kremlin’s agenda.

Russia Doesn’t Need the West to be Onboard

Indeed, the Moscow-based Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology did not develop the Sputnik V hopefully to convince the West of Russia’s good intentions but to recover the ground lost during the first phase of the pandemic. It comes as no surprise that the first countries to be approached, and by which the Kremlin itself has been approached, belong to the post-Soviet space and, more broadly, to the Global South; these same countries will also have the privilege of receiving their orders in record time.

As of mid-September the list of Sputnik V-interested countries belonging to the former USSR is comprised of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Belarus. Kazakhstan is set to receive an initial load of more than two million doses and also secured “a guaranteed amount of the Sputnik V vaccine after it passes all trials.” Uzbekistan green-lighted the extraordinary purchase of 35 million doses, and Moldova announced the coming import of unknown amounts of the vaccine.

Regaining a Grip on the Post-Soviet Space

In short, Sputnik V will be Russia’s keystone for keep controlling the post-Soviet space while increasing its influence and improving its image in the Global South, especially in Africa and Asia. Western pressure will follow but they won’t change the fact that the first people to be vaccinated all over the world are going to be treated with the Sputnik V medicine. National economies will be saved from the nightmare of new lockdowns and the research centers of dozens of countries, from Kazakhstan to Nigeria, are working on knowledge exchange programs with Russian scientists.

No further Western development will be able to change the effects of this groundbreaking diplomatic victory, only the potential discovery that the vaccine does not work properly or effectively.

The Belarus Dilemma

Of great importance is the case of the ever-rebellious Belarus, whose long-lasting President Aleksandr Lukashenko decided to put an end to its anti-Russian stand in the aftermath of the post-election disorders and is now trying to resume high-quality bilateral relations with Russia through a flirtatious diplomacy. After releasing the Wagner Group members detained in late July and accusing the West of being behind a color revolution attempt Lukashenko travelled to Sochi to meet Putin on September 14 and discuss Minsk’s future geopolitical alignment.

In Sochi, Lukashenko got a 1.5 billion dollar loan and the promise to receive the vaccine by mid-October, giving Belarus the privilege to be one of the first countries in the world to start a COVID-19 mass vaccination. These two events would have been impossible if the EU-sponsored regime change attempt had never taken place:

Lukashenko was actually very interested in changing the status quo and moving his country away from the Russian sphere of influence as shown by the historical purchase of American oil and by the Russophobic-dominated election campaign. The decision to try a Euromaidan 2.0 proved a severe mistake dictated by impatience, shortsightedness and scarce knowledge of the Belarusian panorama, which is pretty far from the Ukrainian situation.

Now, with the EU openly supporting a power transition led by the opposition – which has been granted asylum in Poland and Lithuania, and willing to implement a sanctions-regime against Lukashenko-loyal statesmen and business people –  Russia has found in the Sputnik V the ultimate tool with which to re-exert full control over its wayward backyard.

Lukashenko’s perception of Russia is going to be shaped profoundly by the set of events which took place between August and September and whoever will follow him must take into account the fundamental role played by Putin in avoiding a Ukraine-style scenario, which seemed very likely in the first days of protests, and in helping the country face the COVID19-related crisis and economic turmoil despite the misunderstandings with the leadership.

The Balkans

The Western Balkans are another geopolitical theater for which the Sputnik V was made. Indeed, it’s here, in the former Yugoslavia that Turkey and the EU carried out a dual strategy based on the sending of aid, on Turkey’s part, and of money and loans, on the EU’s part. Complementarity was the key-word of the West’s strategy for the Balkans, a region from which Russia has been almost completely ousted over the years.

The Kremlin’s remaining satellites in the Western Balkans are Serbia, Bosnia’s Serbian Entity (Republika Srpska), and to a lesser extent Montenegro, where the Russo-Serbian axis is precluded from politics but keeps exerting a powerful cultural hegemony via the Orthodox Church. It is no surprise that Serbia and Bosnia were targeted by massive humanitarian campaigns by Turkey and the EU: the goal was to take advantage of the pandemic to lay the foundations for a new order in the after-crisis.

The Kremlin managed not to lose the battle for the Western Balkans due to the vital support provided by China, which sent tons of aid to the Balkans at Russia’s request as well as to Belarus, Moldova, Venezuela and other Russian-aligned countries. The outcome of the joint efforts was the securing of Serbia and the creation of a polarized situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The changes brought Bosnia more and more close to the EU and made Turkey and the Republika Srpska increasingly reliant on – and friendly with – the Moscow-Beijing-Belgrade trio.

After a months-long struggle, the battle for the Western Balkans seems close to an end: Republika Srpska announced the intention to order up to one million doses from Russia by the end of the year, and Serbia is likely to follow, as their leader Aleksandar Vucic recently pointed out.

The Avifavir

Against the background of the Sputnik V revolution, Russia is recording another significant victory via the drug Avifavir. It is a COVID-19 treatment drug which is both cheap and reliable. The medication is manufactured by the Russian company ChemRar and, again, the first of its kind to be registered. The quality-price ratio of Avifavir is also convincing an increasing number of countries — including some in the EU — to order millions of doses.

As of mid-September, ChemRar sold the drug to six countries and received orders from 17 countries. Again it is no surprise that the first countries which were approached by the Kremlin – or by which the Kremlin was approached regarding Avifavir – belonged in large part to the post-Soviet space, namely Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Sputnik V and Avifavir were not made to win the race for hegemony over the world – that is a competition which is being fought between the United States and China – but to keep control over the Russosphere and help improve Russia’s position in the Global South.

L'articolo Sputnik-V Vaccine Will Help Russia Rule Over the Global South proviene da InsideOver.

While the US has become a central focus during the coronavirus pandemic due to leading the world in number of cases and casualties, America’s southern neighbor is also struggling. Similar to the initial American response, Mexico is holding off on testing for COVID-19.

Leading the World in Cases, but Not Testing

In fact, the Mexican state averages one test per 100,000 people, according to John Hopkins University. That number pales in comparison to the US – which is hardly the gold standard – which has a testing rate of 168 per 100,000, as the Guardian reported.

As the world approaches the six-month anniversary of the global pandemic, testing supplies are not exactly elusive as manufacturers have risen to the occasion. Mexico’s refusal to embrace widespread testing is the result of the miserly fiscal policies of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, commonly referred to as “Amlo.”

Saving Money at the Expense of Public Health

Amlo himself was only tested before he journeyed to Washington for a meeting with American President Donald Trump. Various members of his cabinet and other top Mexican officials have contracted the disease. On Sunday, it was announced that Mexico’s Dr. Jesus Grajeda, health minister for Chihuahua, died after a two-week battle against COVID-19, as Reuters reported.

Mexico ranks sixth in the world for number of cases, boasting 390,516 as of Monday morning, according to data compiled by Worldometers. In terms of fatalities, it is No. 4 with 43,680 behind only the US, Brazil, and the UK.

Amlo Refuses to Change Course

Yet despite these facts that suggest Amlo’s approach is not working, the Mexican leader maintains course.

“The WHO has said ‘test, test, test’ – but not even healthcare workers have access to tests,” said Rafael Soto, a nurse and spokesman for medical personnel protesting for healthcare improvements. “Many co-workers have died without ever having been tested.”

A lack of testing appears to be a decision made with the sole intention of reducing the government’s expenditures.

“It’s a strategy based on the idea of maximum savings – and it’s not producing results,” said Malaquías López-Cervantes, a public health professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). 

Amlo’s Penny-Pinching Record

In truth, Amlo’s eccentric fiscal policies were his hallmark long before he assumed office. Now, in the time of COVID-19, Amlo’s stubbornness to loosen the state’s purse strings has contributed to dismal testing rates and minimal economic relief, according to reporting from the Los Angeles Times.

“His entire political career he has spoken out against [economic bailouts],” said Genaro Lozano, a political scientist at the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City. “One of the reasons he got to the presidency had to do with the fact that people were very angry about the use of public money for frivolities.”

Although a liberal politician, Amlo’s monetary ideals are decidedly conservative. During his presidential campaign, he argued “you can’t have a rich government and a poor people.”

To that end, Amlo walks his talk; when he cut government spending, he reduced his own salary by 60%, the Guardian reported. Some of those budget cuts came at the expensive of the state’s healthcare system, a decision that appears questionable in hindsight.

Amlo is Self-Sabotaging His Presidency

Furthermore, Amlo’s political future will likely be determined this year and may very well already be set in stone. Amlo is only halfway through the second year of a 6-year term, but his economic policies have eaten away his approval ratings.

Since taking office, Amlo’s approval rating has slid from 83% to 56% in June, the Yucatan Times reported. The negative economic effects of Amlo’s fiscal policies have begun to catch up with his ratings, particularly as the Mexican economy shed 700,000 in April and May, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Mexican economy is down 10.5% for the year, the International Monetary Fund reported, contributing to Amlo’s 63% economic disapproval rating, according to Bloomberg.

Amlo continues to refuse to design an economic stimulus, not to save his polling numbers nor to rescue the Mexican economy. The maximum he is wiling to do is to transfer $25.6 billion from other areas of the government for social programs and infrastructure projects, according to Reuters. However, this will cause other aspects of Mexico City to suffer as Peter is robbed to pay Paul.

Leading Mexican Official: Testing is a ‘Waste of Time’

The central bank did announce a $31 billion stimulus, however the action will primarily help stabilise the financial system, not the unemployed Mexican worker. It is not enough to undo the damage from COVID-19 and two years of Amlo’s heavy spending cuts. 

Until COVID-19 is cured or suffocated out of existence through social distancing, lockdowns, and masks, the Mexican economy will continue to crumble as will Amlo’s presidency. Gangs and cartels have also capitalized on the economic downturn, putting Mexico on course for its most violent year ever, BBC News reported.

Corruption and crime coincide with the COVID-19 crisis, and amid it all, Amlo’s coronavirus tsar, Hugo López-Gatell called testing “a waste of time, effort and resources.”

Mexico City was in disrepair when Amlo assumed office and although he may have honest morals, his economic policies have gutted any hope of Mexico bettering itself in the near future. For Amlo, the leader who promised the creation of two million jobs somehow without government spending, any spending from the public coffers is inherently evil. Fighting a pandemic with that mentality is next to impossible.

L'articolo Amlo’s Penny-Pinching Policies Are Plunging Mexico Into Ruin proviene da InsideOver.

Sweden, typically a poster child for healthy living, has been forced to defend its coronavirus strategy as the state finally begins to see the curve flatten. The fact that Sweden — a state that was rated 8.5 for healthy by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) —failed to control the disease for so long even as its neighbors managed to succeed gives reason to question the Swedish strategy, which was unconventional from the beginning.

Voluntary Measures

From the onset, Stockholm decided not to lockdown, a decision it maintained through the worst of the crisis in April. The Swedish strategy essentially boiled down to trusting its residents to do the right thing. Social distancing has been voluntary and the only hard rule issued by the government is a prohibition of gatherings with more than 50 people, BBC News reported.

Although the government did not explicitly declare herd immunity a goal, some health experts suggested Sweden could be a test bed for the theory. However, others have argued against such an approach and most agreed that for it to work properly, an average 60-85% of a state’s population would need to be infected, according to the New York Times.

Furthermore, vulnerable demographics such as the elderly are unlikely to mingle in public as frequently as a healthy individual, thereby decreasing the likelihood that they would obtain the antibodies. Finally, the jury is still out on whether an immunity can even be established against COVID-19. Even with a vaccine, it is possible that it may not be 100% and permanently effective with the first dose.

The Swedish Public Health Agency revealed a paltry 6% of its population has tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, as BBC News reported, which is hardly a raving endorsement for herd immunity.

Astronomical Death Rate Among the Nordic States

For these reasons, Sweden stirred controversy when it decided that it would not shutdown with the rest of the world and it continued to pay a price in casualties. As of Friday, it ranked 27th with 5,676 deaths according to health data compiled by Worldometers.

Its neighbors boast far better results, however. Denmark has only 612 deaths, Norway 255, and Finland 328. Even when considering population differences (Sweden has roughly twice the population of each of its neighbors, the numbers are harrowing. So why then are Swedish health experts so resolute in defending their strategy and insistent upon declaring it a national success?

“The epidemic is now being slowed down, in a way that I think few of us would have believed a week or so ago,” said Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist.

‘No Strong Evidence’

It is true, the numbers are now looking incredibly favorable particularly when compared with the virus’ peak in April. Tegnell hailed recent statistics as vindication of the Swedish strategy saying, “We have managed to [slow the spread] with substantially less invasive measures.

Have daily deaths and cases fallen? Yes. Did resisting a nationwide lockdown keep the Swedish economy afloat? Yes. However if these are the only metrics, then what is the point of fighting the coronavirus at all, if we are to entirely ignore the lives sacrificed needlessly?

Tegnell conceded there may have been too many casualties, but he remained in stark denial that lockdown measures would have helped, declaring there was “no strong evidence that a lockdown would have made the much of a difference.”

Lofven Government Loses Support

Lives weren’t the only casualty as a result of the strategy—support for the government, including Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, plummeted. Although Lofven and his Swedish Social Democratic Party have enjoyed higher approval numbers since before the pandemic began, June marked a turning point as Lofven’s approval rating fell 10%, according to SBS News. Public faith in Lofven’s party similarly dropped 9%.

Swedes are now questioning whether or not Stockholm leaders made the right call. Estimates anticipate a 5% economic contraction this year, less than Sweden’s neighboring states. Consumer spending was higher, however, but an unemployment rate of 9% leads the Nordic states, BBC News reported.

“Sweden, like the other Nordic countries, is a small, open economy, very dependent on trade. So the Swedish economy tends to do poorly when the rest of the world is doing poorly,” said Prof. Karolina Ekholm, a former Deputy Governor of Sweden’s central bank.

It remains to be seen if Sweden’s strategy has further reciprocal effects, but for now the damage, aside from casualties, appears to be limited to its image. The state, usually a top-tier nation in terms of health and wellness, now is forced to defend the sacrificing of its citizens to preserve its economy. 

L'articolo Sweden Defends Coronavirus Strategy Despite High Casualty Rate 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.

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.

In mid-March, I suddenly began feeling exhausted both mentally and physically. My muscles were aching, and my knees were weak, something I had not experienced in almost eight years.

The UK in Mid-March

The number of coronavirus cases in Britain had just risen sharply to 2,626 with 103 deaths being reported. But, despite all the evidence indicating that the virus was quickly spreading across Britain, especially in major cities, the government was still undecided on how to respond to the pandemic.

Boris Johnson had just won the election on a platform of delivering Brexit and improving the state of the economy. He was therefore overly cautious of taking extreme measures that could hinder the delivery of his promises. Introducing a total lockdown would mean a slump in the economy and a delay in Brexit negotiations.

Johnson therefore stuck to his message of encouraging people to be personally responsible in order to help contain the virus. One of the strategies that had been proposed to him was to allow the population to be infected so that it could develop a “herd immunity.”

Herd immunity happens when so many people become immune after being exposed to an infectious disease. However the strategy was opposed by experts who warned that it would lead to mass deaths.

March 23 Lockdown

On March 23, after much criticism as the coronavirus continued to wreak havoc, Johnson took an unprecedented step and announced various measures to limit the spread of the virus. All UK residents were to stay at home and only venture outside for necessary reasons. The police were also given powers to fine those who violated the lockdown measures.

“If you don’t follow the rules, the police have power to enforce them including with fines . We will immediately close all shops selling non-essential goods, other premises including libraries and places of worship,” Johnson announced.

This measure was actually advantageous to me because the fatigue was getting the best of me and I needed some time to rest. However, it had not yet dawned on me that my exhaustion was possibly a sign of the coronavirus.

According to a report published in the Daily Mail, many people suffering from the COVID-19 have complained about both physical and mental fatigue, as the virus interferes with the nervous system. For me, I thought it  was because of stress and overworking myself since I was writing my Masters exams and working at the same time.

My Symptoms Worsen

The biggest sign that all was not well was when I lost my smell just a day after Boris announced the lockdown. Normally I use Dettol to clean my bathtub before having a shower in the morning. However on this particular morning, I couldn’t smell the strong scent that Dettol emits.

At lunch time I ordered chips and chicken from nearby restaurant since I was too fatigued to cook. But something was amiss. The taste was not the one I have become accustomed to. According to British Association of Otorhinolaryngology a loss of smell or taste could mean you are infected with the coronavirus.

The next morning, I woke up with an extraordinarily strong fever and a sharp pain deep inside my nose. Having grown up in Africa, I thought I had malaria because the symptoms were almost similar. But malaria doesn’t exist in Britain, ruling out the possibility that I had contracted it.

With the pain becoming persistent I went to a local chemist’s shop where I bought a bottle of Lemsip but there was no improvement. I later learned from the experts that the pain I was feeling was as a result of the virus entering my nose and attaching itself in the airway that produces a protein called ACE2 before attacking the cells.

With the unrelenting fever and nasal pain, I had to start asking myself questions about what was ailing me. I had not been sick for almost eight years except with the normal flu which normally  goes away after a couple of days. My worry was why I was feeling seriously sick in the middle of a pandemic.

With such questions possessing my mind, the only answer to myself was that it was highly likely that I had contracted the coronavirus. Compounding this fear was that one of my neighbors had been taken ill with the coronavirus, although it was highly unlikely that I had gotten it from him.

Testing Myself

The following day I decided to call my doctor since we had been advised not to visit hospital or any medical practice if we had symptoms similar to those of coronavirus. Instead we were advised to stay at home and self-isolate unless the conditions worsened.

Nevertheless I spoke to my doctor, who informed me that it was highly likely that I was suffering from the coronavirus and that I should self-isolate at home for two weeks. Because the government was not carrying out COVID-19 tests unless one required intensive care, he recommended that I should do one privately at a clinic on Harley Street.

The Harley clinic sent me a kit containing instruments and instructions on how to extract samples from my body. I was instructed to send the samples back to the clinic for testing immediately after I was done. After doing as I was instructed and sending the samples, the test came out positive, confirming my fear.

Although I was really sick, I was confident enough that I was going to overcome it. I am young, healthy and without any underlying medical condition, something medical experts say reduces the risks of developing coronavirus complications. My only worry was that I live alone, which meant that I was in great danger if my condition worsened.

According to experts any body suffering from the coronavirus should start showing some improvement after two weeks but this was not the case with me. My condition was still the same after two weeks with the fever showing no sign of ending. My knees were weak, and my appetite was gone.

Slight Improvements by the Third Week

Towards the end of the third week I started seeing some improvement. The fever was slowly fading away and the excruciating pain in my nose had left. At the end of the fourth week I was now able to get out of bed and everything seemed normal again.

One thing I can say from my experience is that even after healing, it will take time before I fully regain strength. For almost two weeks after healing, I still struggled to climb stairs and walk to the shops. The fatigue was overwhelming, and my legs were trembling. One research published in NewScientist stated that viral infections related to COVID-19, had previously been linked to problems with long-term fatigue.

According to the online journal, some people who had suffered from the SARS virus outbreak of 2002 to 2003 experienced fatigue, muscle weakness and sleep problem up to three years. “We don’t know about corona, but I think it will lead to many, many cases of post-infective fatigue syndrome,” said Simon Wesseley, former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

With 33, 998 people now dead in Britain, I count myself lucky that I was able to beat it. One lesson I learnt from my experience is to stay healthy and to remain resolute no matter the challenge. Many have been made to believe that contracting coronavirus means death, which is far from the truth. Out of the 4,609,249 cases diagnosed in the world so far, the number of deaths is 307,485, which means the chances of overcoming it are quite high.

L'articolo My Four Weeks With 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.