Worldwide epidemic shows Virus resease was accidental, not deliberate
Newsletter published on February 25, 2020
(1) Worldwide epidemic shows Virus resease was accidental, not deliberate
(2) Nature journal (2015): Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky
research; Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.
(3) Venice Carnival closes as Italy imposes lockdown
(4) Iranian Lawmaker Says 50 Have Died From Coronavirus Outbreak In Qom
(5) Francis Boyle: it leaked out of [Wuhan Biolab] and all these BSL-4
facilities leak
(6) Maybe Global Supply Chains Were a Bad Idea; risk of Paralysis
(7) Harvard Professor: coronavirus will not be containable; 40-70% of
People will be Infected
(8) You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus; most cases are not
life-threatening
(9) Covid-19 Is Unstoppable and Global Depression Is Inevitable
(10) Japan dilemna on Olympics
(11) Australian Government risks virus spread via international students
(12) Students evade Travel Ban by going to a third country for 14 days
(1) Worldwide epidemic shows Virus resease was accidental, not deliberate
- by Peter Myers, February 25, 2020
Global Research, a Stalinist website, has been publishing articles
alleging that Covid-19 was an attack by the US on China.
The main such writer is Larry Romanoff, a denier of the Tiananmen
massacre of 1989.
Another such writer is Israel Shamir; he denies the Ukraine Famine AND
the Tiananmen massacre.
Such claims assume that Covid-19 attacks only Chinese, or East Asians.
In that case, why is panic spreading in Italy, Iran, the United States
and elsewhere?
If, on the other hand, Coronavirus kills people of all races, then
deliberately releasing it would rebound on the country which released it.
The economic affects are already worldwide. Travel is plummeting;
manufacturing supply chains are collapsing; the Tokyo Olympics may be
cancelled; depression is looming.
I refused to publish such salacious accounts alleging deliberate attack.
Not only because they lack evidence, but also because they can incite
retaliation, including war.
One common feature of these articles blaming a US attack, is that they
exonerate China of any role in developing the virus.
Nature journal reported in 2015 that a bat virus had been engineered at
the University of North Carolina: "Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS
can infect human cells."
One of the leaders in this project was Shi Zhengli-Li; she used to work
at the University of North Carolina, but then became head of Wuhan BSL-4
Bio-Lab.
Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said
that the researchers have created a novel virus that "grows remarkably
well" in human cells. "If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the
trajectory," he said. (item 2)
Now we know.
Francis Boyle says it leaked from Wuhan Bio-Lab, commenting,
"It does appear they stole something there from Winnipeg. This activity
that they engaged in clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention.
Research development of biological weapons these days is an
international crime, the use of it would be. That was criminal." (item 5)
That would give the Chinese government an additional reason to deny
responsibility.
But, Boyle says, all the BSL-4 labs are developing such weapons; with
the blessing of the WHO, which knows.
Maybe we need World Government after all.
If, as seems likely, Covid-19 will spread around the world, it will kill
about 1% of the human population, about 70 million people. Most at risk
are the very old, the very young, and those with weak immune systems
from other medical conditions.
I have long advocated the right to die, i.e. voluntary euthenasia. I
believe that old people facing an agonising death from Covid-19 should
be allowed a quick, painless way out.
(2) Nature journal (2015): Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky
research; Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.
Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research
Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.
Declan Butler
12 November 2015
An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one
related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory
syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab
variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.
In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists
investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in
China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface
protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted
to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human
airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the
necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect
them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.
Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able
to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do
so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a
different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2.
The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of
directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an
intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought,
the researchers say.
But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the
experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk
is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur
Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel
virus that "grows remarkably well" in human cells. "If the virus
escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory," he says.
Creation of a chimaera
The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow
lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range
of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research.
In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal
funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and
MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a
virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).
The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began,
and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed
while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an
infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that
the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.
But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides
little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014
virus in bats poses to humans.
Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would
need to evolve to pose any threat to humans — a change that may never
happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team
reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it
grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in
mice.
"The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new,
non-natural risk," agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and
biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both
Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function
research.
In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think
twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review
panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on
circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that
discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus
studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved".
Useful research
But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study
findings "move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear
and present danger", says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper.
Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network
of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from
animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.
Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models
are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus,
Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens
should be prioritized for further research attention.
Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be
seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis
of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to
infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already
overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human
receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. "I don't
think you can ignore that." He plans to do further studies with the
virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans.
Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18787
References
Menachery, V. D. et al. Nature Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985
(2015).
Ge, X.-Y. et al. Nature 503, 535–538 (2013). ==
Letter
Published: 09 November 2015
A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for
human emergence
Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram,
Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey,
Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia,
Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric
Nature Medicine volume 21, pages1508–1513(2015)Cite this article
[...] Synthetic construction of chimeric mutant and full-length
SHC014-CoV was approved by the University of North Carolina
Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Dual Use Research of Concern
committee.
Ethics statement.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations for
the care and use of animals by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
(OLAW), NIH. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC, Permit Number
A-3410-01) approved the animal study protocol (IACUC #13-033) used in
these studies. [...]
(3) Coronavirus: Venice Carnival closes as Italy imposes lockdown
February 24, 2020
Italian officials have cut short the Venice Carnival as they try to
control what is now the worst outbreak of the coronavirus in Europe.
Authorities in the Veneto region said the event would end later on
Sunday, two days earlier than scheduled.
Italy has by far the highest number of coronavirus cases in Europe, with
152. Three people have died.
Italy has imposed strict quarantine restrictions in two northern
"hotspot" regions close to Milan and Venice.
About 50,000 people cannot enter or leave several towns in Veneto and
Lombardy for the next two weeks without special permission. Even outside
the zone, many businesses and schools have suspended activities, and
sporting events have been cancelled including several top-flight
football matches. [...]
Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced on Saturday that "extraordinary
measures" would come into force to try to stem the rising number of
coronavirus cases.
He said the quarantine restrictions could last for weeks.
Police, and if necessary the armed forces, will have the authority to
ensure the regulations are enforced.
Angelo Borrelli, the head of Italy's Civil Protection Department, told
reporters that 110 of the confirmed cases were in Lombardy, with 21 in
Veneto with others in Emilia-Romagna and Lazio.
Officials reported a third death on Sunday, an elderly woman from the
town of Crema suffering from cancer.
Italian officials say they are still trying to trace the source of the
outbreak.
The Venice Carnival had been due to close on Tuesday but regional
president Luca Zaia told Sky TG24 television on Sunday that it would be
suspended, along with other events, in a bid to combat the virus.
"From this evening, we plan to stop carnival and all sporting activities
until 1 March," he said.
Universities in Milan have been closed and the city's mayor, Giuseppe
Sala, said schools would also close their doors while the outbreak
continued.
"As a precaution I think that the schools have to be closed in Milan. I
will propose to the president of the region to enlarge the precaution to
the entire metropolitan city area. It is just a precaution, we don't
want to create panic," he said.
Colette Walsh, an English teacher living in the town of Lissone, told
the BBC that supermarket shelves were empty as people were panic-buying. ...
(4) Iranian Lawmaker Says 50 Have Died From Coronavirus Outbreak In Qom
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/24/2020 - 06:19
Heading into yet another week where headlines across the world are
dominated by the coronavirus outbreak, it looks like the market has
finally accepted the fact that this virus isn't 'just the flu' as US
stocks look headed for a sharp drop at the open, set to build on their
losses from last week.
Following the release of the latest batch of infection numbers from
China and South Korea, the focus Monday morning has shifted back to
Iran, where the true scope of the outbreak is rapidly becoming apparent:
News reports claim the death toll in the city of Qoms has already hit
50. If true, that would be far and away the largest number of deaths in
a single country outside mainland China (at least, that we know of).
Iran alone has seemingly tripled the death toll ex-China overnight (even
if the deaths haven't yet been counted by Johns Hopkins, SCMP or the
other running databases that have been cataloguing the crisis).
As far as 'confirmed' cases go, the toll remains at 12, still higher
than any other single country ex-China. At least that's what the Iranian
Health Ministry is insisting on.
But according to a lawmaker who spoke to the Associated Press, the
'true' death toll is 50:
A staggering 50 people have died in the Iranian city of Qom from the new
coronavirus this month, a lawmaker was quoted as saying on Monday, even
as the Health Ministry insisted only 12 deaths have been recorded to
date in the country.
The new death toll reported by the Qom representative, Ahmad Amiriabadi
Farahani, is significantly higher than the latest number of nationwide
confirmed cases of infections that Iranian officials had reported just a
few hours earlier, which stood at 12 deaths out of 47 cases, according
to state TV.
Health Ministry spokesman Iraj Harirchi rejected the Qom lawmaker's
claims, insisting the death toll from the virus remains at 12.
However, he raised the number of confirmed cases from the virus to 61.
Some 900 other suspected cases are being tested, he said.
"No one is qualified to discuss this sort of news at all," Haririchi
said, adding that lawmakers have no access to coronavirus statics and
could be mixing figures on deaths related to other diseases like the flu
with the new virus, which first emerged in China in December.
While the health ministry insists that lawmakers don't have access to
officials statistics, we suspect that a representative of a community
would know roughly how many people have succumbed to the virus in his
community. That is not at all far-fetched. The same lawmaker said
another 250 have been quarantined in Qoms, which, based on the death
toll, sounds like not nearly enough.
And of course, 'mixing up deaths with the flu' is an excuse we've seen
before.
(5) Francis Boyle: it leaked out of [Wuhan Biolab] and all these BSL-4
facilities leak
TRANSCRIPT: Bioweapons Expert Dr. Francis Boyle On Coronavirus
By GreatGameIndia - February 5, 2020
Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Dr. Francis Boyle, who is
international law professor at the University of Illinois. We'll be
discussing the Wuhan coronavirus and biological warfare.
Dr. Francis Boyle: All these BSL-4 labs are by United States, Europe,
Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test
biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific
reason to have BSL-4 labs. That figure I gave $100 billion, that was
about 2015 I believe. I had crunched the numbers and came up with that
figure the United States since 9/11.
To give you an idea that’s as much in constant dollars as the US spent
to develop the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb. So it’s clearly all
weapons related. We have well over 13,000 alleged life science
scientists involved in research developed testing biological weapons
here in the United States. Actually this goes back it even precedes 9/11
2001.
I have another book, The Future of International Law and American
Foreign Policy, tracing that all the way back to the Reagan
administration under the influence of the neocons and they got very
heavily involved in research development testing of biological weapons
with DNA genetic engineers. It was because of that I issued my plea in
1985 in a Congressional briefing sponsored by the Council for
Responsible Genetics, I’m a lawyer for them. They’re headquartered in
Cambridge, Mass. All the MIT, Harvard people are involved in that, the
principal ones. And then they asked me to draft the implementing
legislation.
The implementing legislation that I drafted was originally designed to
stop this type of work. "Death science work", I call it, "by the United
States government". After 9/11, 2001, it just completely accelerated. My
current figure, that last figure a 100 billion. I haven’t had a chance
to re-crunch the numbers because I just started classes. But you have to
add in about another 5 billion per year.
Basically, this is offensive biological weapons raised by the United
States government and with its assistance in Canada and Britain. And so
other States, the world have responded accordingly including Russia and
China. They were going to set up a whole series of BSL-4 facilities as
well. And you know Wuhan was the first. It backfired on them.
Geopolitics and Empire: Would you basically consider what happened and
Wuhan and just boil it down to ineptitude or incompetence on the Chinese
part?
Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, it’s criminality. It does appear they stole
something there from Winnipeg. This activity that they engaged in
clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention. Research development
of biological weapons these days is an international crime, the use of
it would be. That was criminal.
I’m not saying they deliberately inflicted this on their own people, but
it leaked out of there and all these BSL-4 facilities leak. Everyone
knows that who studies this. So this was a catastrophe waiting to
happen. Unfortunately, it happened. The Chinese government under Xi and
his comrades there have been covering this up from the get-go. The first
reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they
couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s
propaganda.
The WHO still refuses to declare a global health emergency. It said
Tedros was over there shaking hands with Xi and smiling and yanking it
up. The WHO was in on it. They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs.,
they know exactly what’s going on and that is a WHO research-approved
laboratory. They know what’s going on too. You can’t really believe
anything the WHO is telling you about this, either they’re up to their
eyeballs in it, in my opinion.
(6) Maybe Global Supply Chains Were a Bad Idea; risk of Paralysis
Maybe Global Supply Chains Were a Bad Idea
The coronavirus outbreak exposes the peril of far-flung parts networks
and the risk of paralysis.
By Brooke Sutherland
February 21, 2020, 3:00 PM EST
Transporting parts from country A to country B is an obstacle course
that seems to only get more complicated. If the trade war showed the
risks of globalized supply-chains, the coronavirus may solidify that
business model as a liability.
While some factories have started to come back on line, many remain
closed as China tries to contain a respiratory illness that has already
killed more than 2,000 people. Deere & Co. said Friday that it would
spend an extra $40 million on expedited freight to help ensure the
availability of parts for its international operations as the virus
threatens its supply chain. Meanwhile, Nissan Motor Co. is bracing for
disruptions and parts shortages at plants as far away as the U.S. should
facilities in the outbreak epicenter of Hubei — which are responsible
for some 800 types of vehicle parts — stay idled much longer. Three
General Electric Co. sites in Hubei are still closed, and others
elsewhere in China aren’t at full staffing levels, Chief Executive
Officer Larry Culp said at a Citigroup Inc. conference this week. While
there’s sufficient buffer inventory right now, Culp said he anticipates
any disruption to the supply chain to show up later in the spring.
General consensus among market analysts had been that the outbreak would
be a passing blip from which the economy should recover quickly, but
growing signs that both the virus and the business paralysis is
beginning to spread beyond mainland China make that far from a
guaranteed outcome. A notable driver of the better-than-expected
preliminary IHS Markit read on German factory activity for February was
a lengthening of delivery times. While that’s typically a reflection of
such strong demand that companies are struggling to keep up, in this
case it most likely reflects a breakdown in the supply chain from the
coronavirus-linked shutdowns in Asia. Even the comparatively robust
U.S. economy felt the sting of the coronavirus, with a preliminary read
from from IHS Markit pointing to the first contraction in business
activity since 2013.
Whether the outbreak derails global growth or not, it’s likely to only
speed a deeper reexamination of manufacturing supply chains and
accelerate the unwinding of far-flung parts networks. [...]
(7) Harvard Professor: coronavirus will not be containable; 40-70% of
People will be Infected
Harvard Professor Says 40-70 Per Cent of People Worldwide Will Be
Infected With Coronavirus
Says asymptomatic nature of virus means it "will ultimately not be
containable."
24 February, 2020
Paul Joseph Watson
also at
Harvard epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch says that the coronavirus
will not be containable and that 40-70 of people worldwide will be infected.
In an article entitled You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus, the
Atlantic explains how the coronavirus is particularly dangerous because
it may cause cause no symptoms at all in many carriers of the infection.
According to Harvard epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch, this
contributes to his prediction that coronavirus "will ultimately not be
containable."
"Lipsitch predicts that, within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent
of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes
COVID-19," reports the Atlantic.
The professor clarifies that this doesn’t mean all of those victims will
become seriously ill and that "many will have mild disease, or may be
asymptomatic."
Lipsitch's "very, very rough" estimate (banking on "multiple assumptions
piled on top of each other") was that 100 or 200 people in the U.S. were
infected. That's all it would take to seed the disease widely...
As The Atlantic noted, even if Lipsitch’s estimates were off by orders
of magnitude, they wouldn’t likely change the overall prognosis.
"Two hundred cases of a flu-like illness during flu season - when you’re
not testing for it - is very hard to detect," Lipsitch said.
"But it would be really good to know sooner rather than later whether
that’s correct, or whether we’ve miscalculated something. The only way
to do that is by testing."
However, given the increasingly stringent measures being taken outside
of China to stop the spread of the virus, including in Italy where
people are being prevented from leaving towns, one wonders how severe
the panic will be if there is a massive global pandemic.
As we highlighted earlier, with over 220 cases reported in Italy, store
shelves in some areas of the country are already beginning to empty.
Meanwhile, a World Health Organization adviser says that coronavirus
could be the widely feared ‘Disease X’ that experts have been warning
about for years.
"Whether it will be contained or not, this outbreak is rapidly becoming
the first true pandemic challenge that fits the Disease X category,
listed to the WHO’s priority list of diseases for which we need to
prepare in our current globalised society," wrote Prof Marion Koopmans.
* * *
(7) You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus; most cases are not
life-threatening
You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus
Most cases are not life-threatening, which is also what makes the virus
a historic challenge to contain.
James Hamblin
10:39 AM ET
In May 1997, a 3-year-old boy developed what at first seemed like the
common cold. When his symptoms—sore throat, fever, and cough—persisted
for six days, he was taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Hong Kong.
There his cough worsened, and he began gasping for air. Despite
intensive care, the boy died.
Puzzled by his rapid deterioration, doctors sent a sample of the boy’s
sputum to China’s Department of Health. But the standard testing
protocol couldn’t fully identify the virus that had caused the disease.
The chief virologist decided to ship some of the sample to colleagues in
other countries.
At the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the
boy’s sputum sat for a month, waiting for its turn in a slow process of
antibody-matching analysis. The results eventually confirmed that this
was a variant of influenza, the virus that has killed more people than
any in history. But this type had never before been seen in humans. It
was H5N1, or "avian flu," discovered two decades prior, but known only
to infect birds.
By then, it was August. Scientists sent distress signals around the
world. The Chinese government swiftly killed 1.5 million chickens (over
the protests of chicken farmers). Further cases were closely monitored
and isolated. By the end of the year there were 18 known cases in
humans. Six people died.
This was seen as a successful global response, and the virus was not
seen again for years. In part, containment was possible because the
disease was so severe: Those who got it became manifestly, extremely
ill. H5N1 has a fatality rate of around 60 percent—if you get it, you’re
likely to die. Yet since 2003, the virus has killed only 455 people. The
much "milder" flu viruses, by contrast, kill fewer than 0.1 percent of
people they infect, on average, but are responsible for hundreds of
thousands of deaths every year.
Severe illness caused by viruses such as H5N1 also means that infected
people can be identified and isolated, or that they died quickly. They
do not walk around feeling just a little under the weather, seeding the
virus. The new coronavirus (known technically as SARS-CoV-2) that has
been spreading around the world can cause a respiratory illness that can
be severe. The disease (known as COVID-19) seems to have a fatality rate
of less than 2 percent—exponentially lower than most outbreaks that make
global news. The virus has raised alarm not despite that low fatality
rate, but because of it.
Coronaviruses are similar to influenza viruses in that they are both
single strands of RNA. Four coronaviruses commonly infect humans,
causing colds. These are believed to have evolved in humans to maximize
their own spread—which means sickening, but not killing, people. By
contrast, the two prior novel coronavirus outbreaks—SARS (severe acute
respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, named
for where the first outbreak occurred)—were picked up from animals, as
was H5N1. These diseases were highly fatal to humans. If there were mild
or asymptomatic cases, they were extremely few. Had there been more of
them, the disease would have spread widely. Ultimately, SARS and MERS
each killed fewer than 1,000 people.
COVID-19 is already reported to have killed more than twice that number.
With its potent mix of characteristics, this virus is unlike most that
capture popular attention: It is deadly, but not too deadly. It makes
people sick, but not in predictable, uniquely identifiable ways. Last
week, 14 Americans tested positive on a cruise ship in Japan despite
feeling fine—the new virus may be most dangerous because, it seems, it
may sometimes cause no symptoms at all.
The world has responded with unprecedented speed and mobilization of
resources. The new virus was identified extremely quickly. Its genome
was sequenced by Chinese scientists and shared around the world within
weeks. The global scientific community has shared genomic and clinical
data at unprecedented rates. Work on a vaccine is well under way. The
Chinese government enacted dramatic containment measures, and the World
Health Organization declared an emergency of international concern. All
of this happened in a fraction of the time it took to even identify H5N1
in 1997. And yet the outbreak continues to spread.
The Harvard epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch is exacting in his
diction, even for an epidemiologist. Twice in our conversation he
started to say something, then paused and said, "Actually, let me start
again." So it’s striking when one of the points he wanted to get exactly
right was this: "I think the likely outcome is that it will ultimately
not be containable." [...]
Lipsitch predicts that, within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of
people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes
COVID-19. But, he clarifies emphatically, this does not mean that all
will have severe illnesses. "It’s likely that many will have mild
disease, or may be asymptomatic," he said. As with influenza, which is
often life-threatening to people with chronic health conditions and of
older age, most cases pass without medical care. (Overall, around 14
percent of people with influenza have no symptoms.) [...]
(9) Covid-19 Is Unstoppable and Global Depression Is Inevitable
Charles Hugh Smith
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2020
When Will We Admit Covid-19 Is Unstoppable and Global Depression Is
Inevitable?
Given the exquisite precariousness of the global financial system and
economy, hopes for a brief and mild downturn are wildly unrealistic. If
we asked a panel of epidemiologists to imagine a virus optimized for
rapid spread globally and high lethality, they'd likely include these
characteristics:
1. Highly contagious, with an R0 of 3 or higher.
2. A novel virus, so there's no immunity via previous exposure.
3. Those carrying the pathogen can infect others while asymptomatic,
i.e. having no symptoms, for a prolonged period of time, i.e. 14 to 24 days.
4. Some carriers never become ill and so they have no idea they are
infecting others.
5. The virus is extremely lethal to vulnerable subpopulations but not so
lethal to the entire populace that it kills its hosts before they can
transmit the virus to others.
6. The virus can be spread by multiple pathways, including aerosols
(droplets from sneezing/coughing), brief contact (with hotel desk
clerks, taxi drivers, etc.) and contact with surfaces (credit cards,
faucets, door handles, etc.). Ideally, the virus remains active on
surfaces for prolonged periods, i.e. 7+ days.
7. Those infected who recover may catch the virus again, as acquired
immunity is not 100%.
8. As a result of this and other features, it's difficult to manufacture
a vaccine that will reliably protect against infection.
9. The tests designed to detect the virus are inherently limited, as the
virus may be present in tissue that isn't being swabbed.
10. The symptoms of the illness are essentially identical with less
contagious and lethal flu types, so people who catch the virus may not
know they have the novel pathogen.
As you probably know by now, these are all characteristics of Covid-19,
and this is why it is unstoppable. As we now know, millions of people
left Wuhan while the epidemic was raging in January, spreading the virus
throughout China and the world via hundreds of airline flights to other
nations.
As noted here before--no data doesn't mean no virus. Even in the U.S.,
facilities do not have test kits, for example: No one in Hawaii has been
tested for coronavirus as health officials wait for kits from CDC (2/20/20).
The situation in developing nations is similar: few if any test kits,
which are not 100% reliable and so multiple tests may be required, and
so there is no means to ascertain who is a carrier. No data doesn't mean
no virus.
It's impossible to string together a benign narrative that includes
these reports: Virus Kills Chinese Film Director and Family in Wuhan: 4
of 5 family members dead, last survivor in intensive care Researchers
Find 61.5% Of Coronavirus Patients With Severe Pneumonia Won't Survive
Most Patients In South Korean Psychiatric Ward Infected With Coronavirus
If we asked a panel of business executives to imagine a global system
optimized for vulnerability to external shocks, they'd likely include
these characteristics:
1. Long global suppy chains, four, five and six layers deep, so those in
the top layers have no idea where parts and components actually come from.
2. Just-in-time deliveries and limited inventories dependent on complex
logistics, so any shock quickly disrupts the entire network as key nodes
fail.
3. A global supply chain dependent on hundreds of financially marginal
factories and suppliers who do not have the means to pay employees for
weeks or months while the factory is idle.
4. A global supply chain dependent on hundreds of financially marginal
factories with high debts and expenses that will close down and never
re-open.
5. A global consumer economy dependent on the permanent expansion of debt.
6. A global financial system with extremely limited capacity to absorb
defaults as suppliers and zombie corporations (i.e. companies dependent
on ever-greater borrowing to survive) fail.
7. A global economy burdened with overcapacity.
8. A global economy dependent on "the wealth effect" of rising stock and
housing markets to fuel spending, so when these bubbles burst spending
evaporates.
These are precisely the characteristics of our precarious global
economy, dependent on rising debt, vast speculative bubbles, vulnerable
supply chains and marginal consumers and producers. As noted here
before, it doesn't take much to break a system dependent on ever-rising
debt and speculation. This chart illustrates the dynamic: when debt
loads, speculative bets and expenses are all at nosebleed levels, the
slightest decline triggers collapse.
Put another way: the global system has been stripped of redundancy and
buffers. A little push is all that's needed to send it over the edge.
Given the exquisite precariousness of the global financial system and
economy, hopes for a brief and mild downturn are wildly unrealistic. The
global economy is falling off a cliff, and calling it a "recession"
while debt and speculative excesses collapse is a form of denial.
When debt and speculative excesses collapse, it's a depression, not a
recession. If we can't call things by their real name then we guarantee
a wider, deeper cataclysm.
(10) Japan dilemna on Olympics
Japan Can’t Run Out the Clock on Coronavirus
Worries about the viability of the Olympic Games should take a backseat
to containing a potential public health crisis.
By Adam Minter
February 21, 2020, 12:07 PM EST
You can’t outrun Covid-19.
Next month the Olympic torch will arrive in Japan for a four-month relay
to launch the opening ceremonies for the Tokyo summer games. But rather
than anticipating the sight of Olympic torchbearers, much of Japan is
fixated on a different relay: hundreds of masked passengers grimly
walking off the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship in Yokohama.
The ship has been home to more than 630 Covid-19 infections, the largest
cluster in the world outside of Wuhan. Departing passengers all test
negative for the virus before release, but public health experts fear
the virus is hitching rides with individuals who only show symptoms later.
Moreover, on Sunday, Japan's Health Minister acknowledged that the
government is unable to track the route of infections in the country
(which total 90). Meanwhile, the Japanese public, long supportive of
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is losing faith in his ability to cope with
the crisis. What might have been a manageable situation is now exposing
gaps in Japan's ability to respond to a public emergency.
Japan was not supposed to be in this position. Past global pandemics —
such as H1N1 and SARS — emerged from developing countries with poor
health-care infrastructure and limited early detection ability for new
pathogens. Affluent developed countries are believed to have more or
less solved these problems, or at least can afford to manage them in the
event of a crisis. Indeed, a 2019 survey ranked Japan 21st out of 195
countries for its ability to prevent, detect, and respond to epidemic
and pandemic threats.
Yet as any sports fan can attest, rankings are poor proxies for in-game
outcomes. And Japan, with all of its wealth, has not always performed up
to its preferred, competent image. Instead, it's dissembled and
covered-up for the sake of institutional stability. In the 1980s,
Japan’s government initially covered up its failure to stop the use of
unheated blood for transfusions, which led to several thousand Japanese
hemophiliacs contracting HIV, and lawsuits followed by a multi-million
dollar settlement. More recently, in the years following the 2011
meltdown of the Fukushima-Daiichi reactor, TEPCO, the utility that owns
it, conceded that it had refused to prepare for disasters for fear that
doing so would undermine the reputation of Japan's nuclear industry, and
actively covered-up the occurrence of a meltdown (allegedly at the
behest of the Japanese Prime Minister's office).
With a projected cost that might reach $28 billion, the Tokyo Olympics
aren't just another international sporting event for Japan. Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe views them as a critical means of boosting Japan's
tourist industry, entrepreneurship, and brand. High aspirations are high
risk, especially with the Olympics, which rarely go off flawlessly.
Among the almost predictable risks? A pandemic. In 2010, there was
serious talk about postponing the Vancouver Olympics due to the H1N1
outbreak, and in 2016, the Zika virus nearly derailed the Rio summer
games, with several prominent athletes skipping them.
Yet even with so much recent history to recommend preparedness, Tokyo
seemed singularly unprepared when the Diamond Princess docked in
Yokohama with 3,700 passengers, and a handful of infected individuals.
Over the next two weeks, infections soared on the ship under the eye of
Japanese bureaucrats. When a Japanese infectious disease expert (he was
on the ground for SARS in 2003 and Ebola in 2014) talked his way onto
the ship earlier this week, he found violations of the most basic
quarantine procedures, including a failure to wear protective gear when
moving between infection-free and contaminated zones of the ship.
Meanwhile, scientists have criticized the slow release of
epidemiological data from the cruise ship that might illuminate means of
transmission — both on the ship, and elsewhere in Japan. The data
exists, but so far nobody, including Japan's Ministry of Health, can say
when it will be published.
Worst of all, the Japanese government is once again undermining its own
credibility and public confidence with mixed messaging. On one hand, it
is quietly alarmed and not afraid to tell the public. For example, in
recent days, Japan has delayed, canceled, or shrunk public events, from
job fairs to the Olympic marathon trials. On the other hand, Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe has ruled out cancellation or postponement of the
Olympics themselves — the International Olympic Committee boldly claims
it has no "Plan B" — presumably for fear of undermining the reputation
of an Olympics to which Abe and members of Japan's establishment have
hitched their legacies.
The quickening pace of infection in Japan and other parts of Asia could
actually be an opportunity for Japan to reset how it approaches public
health crises, both during and after the Olympics. Step one might be the
most difficult. Despite having a very robust public health system, Japan
lacks a scientist-directed disease control agency modeled after the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control. Its current system, run by bureaucrats who
may or may not know how to manage an epidemic, isn't adequate.
Bureaucracies aren't changed in months, but pressure from the
International Olympic Committee will speed things along.
Next, breaking with past precedent, the Prime Minister's office should
publicly concede that postponement or cancellation of the games might be
necessary if the virus isn't brought under control. Such an
acknowledgement of institutional fallibility would shake up Japan's
moribund bureaucrats and produce the transparency that the international
scientific community needs to help Japan — and the world — deal with the
virus.
Much can happen between now and the Opening Ceremonies. But if Japan
hopes to hold them on time, if at all, it needs to stop treating a
public health crisis as a game it can win by simply running out the clock.
(11) Australian Government risks virus spread via international students
Morrison Government risks virus spread via international students
By Leith van Onselen on February 24, 2020
[...] It has already begun, via The Australian:
The federal government is relaxing travel restrictions for school
students stuck in China, declaring the coronavirus is now contained in
Australia.
About 760 year 11 and 12 students enrolled in Australian schools will be
able to apply to get back into the country as long as they are not
unwell, as as long as they have not come from the Hubei province at the
centre of the outbreak. States and territories will still have the final
say on whether to let students return.
Health Minister Greg Hunt said COVID-19 had been contained in Australia
and the medical recommendation to the government is that the Australian
Border Force continue to provide case-by-case exemptions to the travel
ban from mainland China. ...
A similar relaxation of travel restrictions will be considered for
university students this week, but no decision has been made yet.
As a global pandemic shifts to centre stage, the Morrison Government is
opening the border to the most badly affected country. Literally to
invite in hundreds of thousands of people from the global infection
epicenter, jumping the national risk exposure when the existing blockade
has worked superbly.
Let’s not kid ourselves that this came from medical advice or logic.
Either it is safe to open the border or it is not. You don’t experiment
with kids to test the thesis. It is a political decision based upon an
idea that was hatched by the Chinese Embassy, via the AFR:
A small cohort of Chinese students could soon be allowed into Australia
on a test basis, as the Morrison government seeks to protect the
domestic population from the coronavirus while trying to limit the
damage to the education sector. ...
Other rentiers have chimed in. The National Union of Students has
demanded the Morrison Government immediately revoke its China travel ban
to enable one hundred thousand international students currently stuck in
China to commence their studies in Australia:
The National Union of Students has called for the travel ban to be
lifted immediately, saying it was a "heavy handed, inconsistent and
discriminatory decision" that had "disproportionately affected"
international students…
"The travel ban has created a situation of uncertainty, which has
heightened stress and anxiety with students," Willmott said.
"Things like their education, visa, housing and work are all affected by
this travel ban and the longer it is in place the more this uncertainty
grows. There are obviously already issues with international student
mental health and isolation, so this situation is just exacerbating
these issues."
The largest provider of student accommodation, Scape, has also demanded
the Morrison Government immediately lift the China travel ban:
Scape executive chairman Craig Carracher said he hoped the federal
government would "balance the chief medical officer’s advice with
economic reality" and go ahead and "open the borders, with strict rules"…
About 85 per cent of its portfolio is booked. Around a quarter of those
bookings are yet to arrive, mostly due to the travel ban…
Scape generates about $1 million a week in rents across its portfolio.
Were the ban to extend into March, those students would most likely not
take up those rooms.
We know as well that the universities have been hammering the
Government. This is a decision based upon lobbying pressure.
Even a quick glance at the Chinese data shows no medical or logical
basis for opening the border. Tha statisitcs have been all over the
place. The numbers obviously manipulated. MB estimates are that the
pandemic is still 3x larger than reported given those with mild symptoms
are systemically excluded from statistics:
The Chinese containment effort is working slowly but it has a long way
yet to go before victory is clear. Most of the country remains shut. At
last count, more than fifty countries have some form of Chinese travel
ban. None have been lifted. Some are still being toughened.
Maintaining public health should be the government’s number one
priority, not concerns around short-term revenue losses. A few virus
cases at schools and univerities and the entire education system will
grind to a halt in a panic with perfectly innocent Chinese kids ostracised.
Schools and universities are petridishes for contagion. What will be
the additional costs – physical and financial – if the virus spreads
into the community from there?
Aside from the risk to life and economy, it will be the Australian
taxpayer picking up the enormous costs of treating the coronavirus via
Medicare, not the noisy rent-seeking lobbyists demanding that Australia
open its borders. A point made by Professor Salvatore Barbones over the
weekend:
The coronavirus epidemic, and the travel bans it prompted, threaten to
derail that particular gravy train. So it comes as no surprise that
university vice-chancellors have lobbied aggressively to have
Australia’s travel ban lifted for Chinese students. This, despite the
fact that most have prohibited their own staff and students from
travelling to China — or even to Hong Kong. And despite the fact that
university studies have been suspended in China and Hong Kong themselves.
How can it be that Hong Kong and Australian vice-chancellors have come
to such radically different evaluations of their ability to safely
manage coronavirus exposure? In another two words: moral hazard.
Moral hazard is the expectation that organisations (and their leaders)
will reap the rewards of their successes while others will bear the
burdens of their failures. If the government lifts its travel ban and
100,000 Chinese students fly into Australia, university revenues will
continue the robust growth that has propelled Australia up the
international rankings.
But if those students introduce coronavirus into the general population,
Medicare — which means taxpayers — will pick up the bill. If Australian
universities were required to reimburse the government for the costs of
treating any coronavirus cases that could be traced back to their
Chinese students, they would probably be much less eager to lift the
travel ban.
If the pandemic grows – with major outbreaks in Korea, Japan, Iran and
Italy, as well as probably in Vietnam today – the national interest
response will demand policy redress for economic, national security and
social fallout. Instead we have this mad notion of inviting it into the
education system.
MB has chronicled the slow death of Australian public policy over the
past decade. Now it may literally cost lives.
(12) Students evade Travel Ban by going to a third country for 14 days
Coronavirus ban sees students head for third countries to see out
quarantine period
By Jason Fang and Iris Zhao
Updated 12 Feb 2020, 5:23pm
International university students from China say they are transiting to
third countries to wait out their quarantine period before flying to
Australia to resume their classes.
Key Points:
After a 14-day stay in a country other than mainland China,
international students are likely able to get around a travel ban
A migration agent said he was aware of many students taking this
approach Australia currently has a ban on most travellers from China
The Department of Education, Skills and Employment issued advice earlier
this week on how students "may" be able to get back to Australia via a
third country and provided examples.
"A student leaves mainland China on 3 Feb 2020 and goes to Malaysia.
Provided the student does not return to mainland China they could enter
Australia on 17 Feb 2020," one example said. ...
Prime Minister Scott Morrison also posted on Chinese social media
platform WeChat on the weekend reminding students who already had visas
that they remained valid and would only be cancelled "if the student
attempts to travel to Australia and it is determined that the person has
been to mainland China from 1 February 2020".
On February 1, the Federal Government announced a ban on anyone arriving
from, or transiting through, mainland China from coming to Australia,
unless they had been outside China for 14 days.
The ban excluded Australian citizens, permanent residents and immediate
family members.
Students from China told the ABC how they were now attempting to get
back to Australia in time for classes. [...]
Migration agent Sean Dong told the ABC that many international students
in his WeChat groups were trying to come to Australia through a third
country.
"Many don't want to miss the start of the term," Mr Dong said.
Coco, a Chinese international student who had gone back to Gansu
province, north-west China, for a holiday said she was desperate to get
back before her current visa expired.
"If I can't go back to Australia [before my student visa ends], my
application for a graduate work visa will be affected," she said.
"A lot of problems are coming along. I didn't expect that I am not able
to go back. I'm still paying rent for my room. It's a huge burden."
Kegong Zhong recently graduated from the University of Melbourne and was
about to head back to Australia when the ban was announced.
"This has a great impact on me. My student visa expires in mid-March. I
originally wanted to enter the country in February so I can submit my
application for a work visa in early March," Mr Zhong told the ABC.
He said he was not considering coming back via a third country.
"I heard the news about the third country transfer, but I will not
consider it … this also has great risks.
"I may not be able to travel smoothly from China to a third country.
There is also a great risk of infection during the travel process."
Coronavirus fears in Thailand
Aaron Yan, who is on a working holiday visa and was in the process of
applying for a student visa, said he had also flown to Thailand and
would try to get back into Australia on February 23.
"If I get denied, I'll return to Thailand or go to another country for a
few days before trying to come back again," he said.
While in Thailand, Mr Yan said he planned to spend most of his time in
his hotel room preparing for an English language exam.
"I'm not sightseeing anywhere. Nowhere is safe," he said.
"I go out of the room only for food, and with a mask on. Under the
current situation, I think it's better to stay in the hotel."
Mr Zheng said he had similar fears about the risks of being in Thailand.
"I see more and more Chinese arriving and not all of them wear masks,"
he said.
"All the rooms nearby in my hotel have been taken by Chinese guests. I
didn't dare to go out. Also, I don't have many masks left with me." ...
1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.