Housing the homeless

Uncategorised No Comments
After the unfunded request from the government last week, which also called for the closure of night shelters and street encampments, homelessness charities questioned whether fulfilling it would be feasible. But on Monday, charities were keen to stress that considerable progress had been made in a short space of time, with the national homelessness charity Crisis estimating that about 4,200 had been rehoused in England within a few weeks. Crisis estimates that there are thousands more people still in night shelters, lying next to each other on church hall floors or still living in hostels where they have to access shared space to cook or wash.



“It shows what you can do with money and organisation and an assertive approach from government,” Matthew Downie, director of policy at Crisis said. “There shouldn’t be too much self-congratulation about this. There are people still on the streets, and many people who won’t have eaten for days,” said Downie. “But we should recognise that it has taken a global pandemic to sort out an absolutely solvable problem; it is possible to get thousands of people off the streets and out of night shelters in the space of a week. The real test isn’t how quickly we get people off the streets, but how permanently we can keep them off afterwards,” Downie said.



 Officials are concerned about the risk of transmission between people living on the streets, congregating in day shelters, and also about those who live in shelters with communal sleeping, eating and washing areas.Birmingham city council had worked with a Holiday Inn in the centre of the city to accommodate more than 250 rough sleepers or residents of night shelters, he said, and hotel staff and charity workers were bringing people three meals a day to their rooms to allow them to isolate. Liverpool council has paid for more than 50 people to move into a newly built, unopened hotel.



Meanwhile, charities dealing primarily with people who have an uncertain immigration status said they were worried that not enough support was being offered. People who have a “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) status – which is given to some asylum seekers, or people who have a limited immigration status – are not normally eligible for support from homelessness charities that rely on government funding. The question of how rehousing these people can be funded remains unresolved.



“It’s clear that NRPF conditions from the Home Office are prohibiting local authorities from supporting an extremely vulnerable groups of people,” a spokesperson for Naccom, a charity helping destitute migrants, said.



The Glass Door Homeless Charity said it had been contacted by many people who still needed urgent rehousing. “We have had one case of someone sleeping rough who has been told they must reconnect to their home country rather than being offered accommodation,” Neil Parkinson, a senior caseworker, said.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/thousands-of-rough-sleepers-still-unhoused-in-england-say-charities

COVID-19 and the Dictators

Uncategorised No Comments
Boris Johnson’s coronavirus bill, which gives sweeping new powers to ministers, was passed last week with the proviso that MPs would vote every six months on whether it should be renewed. In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s more wide-ranging and draconian emergency measures have a lifespan of two months.

The situation is different in Hungary. The Hungarian parliament is expected to rubber-stamp the “protecting against the coronavirus” law, ushering in an indefinite period of what amounts to one-man rule in an EU member state.



The new law allows Victor Orbán to rule by decree, alone and unchallenged. The prime minister will be able to override all existing legislation. Elections will not take place. Information on government actions will be provided to the speaker of the Hungarian parliament and the leaders of parliamentary groups.

The spreading of “false” information that could lead to social unrest and prevent the “protection of the public” will become a crime punishable by a lengthy prison sentence. Some of Mr Orbán’s cheerleaders in the media have already suggested approvingly that this provision could lead to the arrest of critical journalists.

Orbán is not the only autocratic leader to have spotted the chance for a power grab. 



 Azerbaijan’s strongman, Ilham Aliyev, has stepped up the harassment of opposition groups. 



 Israel’s beleaguered PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, used an emergency decree to delay the start of his trial on corruption charges, marginalised parliament and moved to enact unprecedented surveillance measures. It now seems possible that a national unity government will be formed with Mr Netanyahu’s main political rival, Benny Gantz, the leader of the Blue and White party. 



 In Egypt, Guardian correspondent, Ruth Michaelson, had her press accreditation was revoked for publishing an article citing research by Canadian disease specialists estimating the actual number of Covid-19 cases in Egypt in early March was likely between 6,000 and 19,300 – at a time when Cairo’s official tally was only three cases. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in power since 2014, has been accused by rights groups of silencing independent and foreign media, and jailing dozens of reporters who published information deemed critical of his administration.



 Ominously, in the United States, Donald Trump has begun to consider himself a “wartime president”.

COVID-19 and Climate Change

Uncategorised No Comments
Countries around the world are enforcing lockdowns with factories shut down, businesses closed, traffic off the roads, air travel reduced and the impact of these  measures on the environment is already noticeable.


In China, nitrogen dioxide emissions, produced by cars, factories and power plants, have fallen by more than 40 per cent over many of the country’s cities under lockdown. Coal consumption at power plants has fallen by 36 per cent and restrictions have led to a 25 per cent drop in energy use and carbon emissions.In northern Italy nitrogen dioxide emissions have fallen by an average of 10 per cent per week since mid-February.
Pollution levels in the UK have also fallen since  strict new measures to halt the spread of the virus were introduced.
Besides a drop in nitrogen dioxide, dirty particulate matter (PM2.5) emitted by vehicles has reduced significantly. “In London, for example, PM2.5 is noticeably lower than would be expected for this time of year at the roadside,” according to Alastair Lewis, professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of York.
Unfortunately, according to Ian Colbeck, professor of environmental science at the University of Essex the reduction in global emissions will most likely be temporary.
“Emissions tend to bounce back fairly quickly shortly after a crisis ends,” he said. “Expect to see short-term impacts on energy and emissions disappear as governments introduce stimulus packages to increase industrial output at the end of the pandemic. Following the global financial crash in 2008-09, carbon emissions increased by 5 per cent as a result of such stimulus.”
Dr Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), has warned that the pandemic could stall global efforts to transition towards clean energy.
“We should not allow today’s crisis to compromise our efforts to tackle the world’s inescapable challenge,” he said in a statement.
According to Professor Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College Londonthe transition to a low-carbon economy requires trillions of pounds of investment. If it is all spent on managing the coronavirus outbreak, “we will not have the financial muscle to invest in a low-carbon future”, he said.
However, like many other  environmental experts he hopes that the pandemic presents an unprecedented opportunity to curb global emissions, explaining that there is “ an amazing opportunity to shape the economy in a slightly different way”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-climate-change-pollution-emissions-china-a9427356.html

Coronavirus crisis. When, if ever, will a vaccine be widely available?

Uncategorised No Comments
There would seem to be good prospects for safe and effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] coronavirus.



First, numerous teams of scientists are working in parallel, applying diverse approaches to the problem. According to Dr. Stanley Plotkin, inventor of the rubella vaccine,[1] at least forty possible vaccines are already under development. Besides European and North American biotech companies, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese companies are now in the race. China alone is developing nine potential vaccines.



In addition, the Oslo-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is funding several research efforts by non-commercial organizations.[2] Non-commercial projects are of special value, because they are not bound by the commercial secrecy that impedes cooperation among scientists working for different companies.



The Boston-based company Moderna has already begun a first-phase clinical trial of an RNA vaccine – a new type – on human subjects.[3]



Second, the evidence so far indicates that the virus is slow to mutate. Genetic differences among the strains that have emerged in different countries are slight. This greatly simplifies the task. Any vaccines developed to protect against the virus in its current forms will probably remain potent for a considerable period.  



Third, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is new but not completely new. It bears some similarity to other coronaviruses and especially to the SARS coronavirus of 2002—2003 (this is why it is labeled as SARS No. 2) and also to the MERS coronavirus of 2012—2014. This family resemblance to viruses that have already been studied facilitates the search for a vaccine.[4]  



Squandered advantage



However, much of the advantage that this family resemblance could have given was squandered when research into SARS and MERS was discontinued after the corresponding epidemics ended. In particular, Dr. Maria Elena Bottazzi and her team at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development developed early vaccines against SARS and MERS but in 2016 were unable to obtain funding to conduct clinical trials. Such trials that would have given a head start to current work on a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Researchers would already have some idea of how humans react to one class of possible vaccines against members of the SARS family of coronaviruses.[5]



Why then was ‘no one interested’ in funding trials of these vaccines? Presumably, funders saw little if any point in developing vaccines against viruses that had apparently disappeared and seemed unlikely to return. That attitude would have reflected not only a poor understanding of the science but also a narrowness of vision typical of a profit-driven society, in which decision makers see no palpable advantage in contributing to a broadly conceived research program. 



It is precisely such a program that we humans need in our present predicament. To quote another scientist[6]:   



We need coordinated research, worldwide, on virus illnesses, to be prepared for the next mutation. It will be impossible to cover all possible variants, but we would be much closer to a new mutation than we are now.



This makes good sense. A socialist world community would do it that way. But is such a high degree of global coordination feasible in a world of competing producers and rival nation-states?



Delay, delay



The time needed from the start of research on a new vaccine until it is marketed is commonly estimated as 12—18 months, although many commentators say that it could easily take two years and some give an upper limit of three years or even longer. Dr. Plotkin recalls that ‘it took at least five years before a vaccine [for rubella] was on the market’ and adds: ‘We cannot afford to have that kind of delay in an emergency like this one.’ He urges companies to ‘go into superaction’ immediately, with a view to having a vaccine available in the event of a second wave of the pandemic next winter – that is, within about 8 months. 



One major reason why the process takes so long is the number and duration of the clinical trials required to get a vaccine licensed by regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. The official purpose of licensing is to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs and vaccines. In practice, the FDA was long ago ‘captured’ by the companies it is supposed to regulate, with most of the scientists who sit on its advisory committees dependent on those companies.[7] FDA decisions therefore tend to reflect the interests of the companies that have the most political clout at the time.  



Monopolization and extortion



Another recommendation made by Dr. Plotkin is that the FDA should license not one but several vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, ‘because if we need millions of doses a single manufacturer will not be able to make enough for the world.’ This too makes good sense. Or at least it would if production were carried on to satisfy human needs. However, we live under a global system in which production is for profit. 



How then does a company that develops and produces vaccines act in order to maximize its profit? It seeks to monopolize the market for a vaccine against a specific disease by ensuring that its vaccine – and its vaccine alone! – is licensed. Then it applies for a patent on its vaccine – another significant cause of delay. Monopolization sets the scene for extortion. The company sells its vaccine at an exorbitant price that makes it unaffordable to most of those who need it.   



How many times this has happened in the past! A few years ago, for instance, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, one of the committees that advises the British National Health Service, recommended that a new vaccine against Meningitis B manufactured by Novartis NOT be made available to all children in the UK, even though this terrible disease afflicts 1,870 people per year. It was ‘highly unlikely to be cost effective’ – in other words, it was too expensive.[8] And this in a country that for over seven decades now has had what ‘progressive’ Americans politicians call ‘Medicare for All’! Vaccines against the scourge of viral hepatitis are likewise too expensive for large-scale use.[9] 



Indeed, there has already been an attempt to monopolize a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine – one that does not yet even exist. In mid-March, the German press reported that the Trump Administration was trying to secure exclusive rights to any vaccine created by the German pharmaceutical company CureVac. Research and development would then be moved to the United States and the vaccine made available only in the United States.[10]



Notes



 [1] Interviewed here.



 [2] As of March 21, six projects. See http://cepi.net/news_cepi.





 [4] See the article by researchers at La Jolla Institute for Immunology in the March 16 online issue of Cell, Host and Microbe.



 [5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-vaccine-cure-doctor-peter-hotez-covid-19-us-trump-congress-states-a9378001.html. For a detailed assessment and references to articles by members of the Bottazzi team, see comments by pharmaceutical engineer Christopher C. VanLang on the question-and-answer website quora.com.  



 [6] Physicist Cees J.M. Lanting on the question-and-answer website quora.com.



 [7] This includes scientists directly employed by companies, scientists working for them on contract, and the many university scientists who depend on corporate money to fund their research. In fact, there are so few genuinely independent scientists that the FDA would be unable to rely mainly on them even if its leading officials wished to do so. 



 [8] 10% of victims die, while many survivors become deaf or blind or have to have limbs amputated (The Independent, July 24, 2013; Daily Mail, August 24, 2013). 



 [9] Vaccines exist for types A and B of this disease. See here. For a discussion of the availability of vaccines in underdeveloped countries, see here.



 [10] The Washington Post, March 16. 


Stephen Shenfield

http://www.wspus.org/2020/03/coronavirus-crisis-when-if-ever-will-a-vaccine-be-widely-available/

Big Ag

Uncategorised No Comments

The US agriculture giant Monsanto and the German chemical giant BASF were aware for years that their plan to introduce a new agricultural seed and chemical system would probably lead to damage on many US farms.



Risks were downplayed even while they planned how to profit off farmers who would buy Monsanto’s new seeds just to avoid damage, according to documents unearthed.



The documents also reveal how Monsanto opposed some third-party product testing in order to curtail the generation of data that might have worried regulators.



The new crop system developed by Monsanto and BASF was designed to address the fact that millions of acres of US farmland have become overrun with weeds resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkillers, best known as Roundup. The collaboration between the two companies was built around a different herbicide called dicamba.



In the Roundup system, farmers could spray glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup over the top of certain crops that Monsanto genetically engineered to survive being sprayed with the pesticide. This “glyphosate-tolerant” crop system has been popular with farmers around the world but has led to widespread weed resistance to glyphosate. The new system promoted by Monsanto and BASF similarly provides farmers with genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton that can be sprayed directly with dicamba. The weeds in the fields die but the crops do not. Dicamba has been in use since the 1960s but traditionally was used sparingly, and not on growing crops, because it has a track record of volatilizing – moving far from where it is sprayed – particularly in warm growing months. As it moves it can damage or kill the plants it drifts across. The companies announced in 2011 that they were collaborating in the development of the dicamba-tolerant cropping systems, granting each other reciprocal licenses, with BASF agreeing to supply formulated dicamba herbicide products to Monsanto. The companies said they would make new dicamba formulations that would stay where they were sprayed and would not volatilize as older versions of dicamba were believed to do. With good training, special nozzles, buffer zones and other “stewardship” practices, the companies assured regulators and farmers that the new system would bring “really good farmer-friendly formulations to the marketplace”.



But records show agricultural experts warned that the plan to develop a dicamba-tolerant system could have catastrophic consequences. The experts told Monsanto that farmers were likely to spray old volatile versions of dicamba on the new dicamba-tolerant crops and even new versions were still likely to be volatile enough to move away from the special cotton and soybean fields on to crops growing on other farms.

Importantly, under the system designed by Monsanto and BASF, only farmers buying Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean seeds would be protected from dicamba drift damage. Other cotton and soybean farmers and farmers growing everything from wheat to watermelons would be at risk from the drifting dicamba.
According to a report prepared for Monsanto in 2009 as part of industry consultation, such “off-target movement” was expected, along with “crop loss”, “lawsuits” and “negative press around pesticides”. Just as Monsanto has done in the Roundup litigation, Monsanto and BASF sought to keep most of the discovery documents they turned over in the dicamba litigation designated confidential. Several million acres of crops have now been reported damaged by dicamba, according to industry estimates. 
The documents show that both companies were excited about the profit potential in the new system. BASF projected its new dicamba herbicide would be a “$400m brand in two years”, with sales by May 2017 exceeding $131m and a gross profit of 45%. The companies saw part of the opportunity in selling to soybean and cotton farmers who didn’t need or want the special dicamba-tolerant crops but could be convinced to buy them as a means to protect their crops from dicamba drift, the documents show. That strategy was noted in multiple documents. In one BASF 2016 strategy update, the company noted “defensive planting” as a “potential market opportunity”. Monsanto also saw “new users” in farmers who suffered drift damage.





Who are important?

Uncategorised No Comments
During the last global financial crisis in 2008 banks were considered important. Too big to fail was the slogan.



  Now, amid COVID-19, important means front-line nurses, doctors, drivers and teachers because without them nothing would work anymore. But unlike the bankers 12 years ago, these people are NOT responsible for the crisis.



  It is the so-called “little people” like shop workers who face the daily risk of being infected — a risk not to be not be underestimated — by just continuing to do their job every day. 



One can only hope that the coronavirus crisis will make some of us rethink our priorities. But do you really believe things will change?

Lockdown cracks begin to show

Uncategorised No Comments
Well into its third week of the lockdown, desperate people in Italy are begging for help because they have run out of money and food.



A video has been shared around the country showing a father with his young daughter addressing the Italian prime minister, saying: “It’s already 15-20 days that we’ve been inside and we’re at our limit. “He gestures to his little girl who is eating a piece of bread and says: “Like my daughter, other children in a few days won’t be able to eat this bit of bread. Rest assured, you will regret this because we’re going to have a revolution.”
Police descended on supermarkets in Palermo in Sicily after reports people have started stealing to feed themselves. 

The mayor of Palermo warns a social emergency is next. 
Leoluca Orlando said, “The more time passes, the more resources are exhausted. The few savings people have are running out. This tells us socio-economic issues will erupt.”

The further south you go, the higher the level of deprivation and the higher the unemployment. While the virus hasn’t reached the same crisis levels in southern Italy, hunger and hardship threaten to be even bigger problems. Lockdown is the only solution to save lives. But in southern Italy, for many, it feels like it’s threatening their very survival.
Closer to home, around a thousand workers at the food processing plant at Moy Park in Portadown went out on a wildcat strike over coronavirus safety concerns, including adequate social distancing. This was followed by a strike of 80 workers at the ABP food processing plant in Lurgan, Co. Armagh, expressing the same concerns. 40 workers at the Linden Foods processing factory in Dungannon in Co. Tyrone followed the examples of Moy Park and Lurgan and refused to start their shifts. There were grave concerns over workers exhibiting symptoms being allowed to work, as well as those with family members self-isolating because of being in high risk categories, and inadequate washing facilities.



How much is a human life worth?

Uncategorised No Comments
Private equity manager and former manager of Goldman Sachs’ Germany operation, Alexander Dibelius, has publicly wondered whether it is right to protect the 10% of the population that is at particularly high risk from coronavirus while allowing the economy to be affected.



The financial daily Handelsblatt published an interviewwith investor Alexander Dibelius.



Dibelius opposes the measures designed to delay the spread of the virus. He justifies this by saying that “the acute collapse of the world economy with all of its consequences is the much larger and more dangerous stress test than Sars-CoV-2.” He is “more worried” about the “collective shutdown of the economy and social life, implemented with virtually no discussion and with a raised moral finger” than “this viral infection.”
“Is it right,” he asks, “that 10 percent of the population—the really high-risk group—is protected while 90 percent and the entire economy are massively crippled, with the potentially dramatic consequence that the basis for our general wellbeing will be massively and permanently eroded?”
“Better the flu than a broken economy,” is how he sums up his position.



COVID-19 culling the elderly – Good for the economy

Uncategorised No Comments
A Daily Telegraph assistant editor, Jeremy Warner, has suggested coronavirus could ‘prove mildly beneficial’ to the UK economy by killing off elderly Britons. He reasoned the 1918 Spanish flu had a ‘lasting impact on supply’ because it killed off ‘primary bread-winners’, which he said is unlikely to happen with coronavirus.



He wrote: ‘Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the COVID-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.’


Responding to criticism in the article’s comments section, Warner said he is ‘unrepentant about the economic point I was trying to make’. He wrote: ‘Any thinning out of those of prime working age is a much bigger supply shock than the same thing among elderly retirees. ‘Obviously, for those affected it is a human tragedy whatever the age, but this is a piece about economics, not the sum of human misery.’


COVID-19 Can Be a Catalyst

Uncategorised No Comments
Working people must be wondering in the middle of this COVID-19 pandemic if the wealthy and powerful have been contaminated by another sort of virus – humanitarianism. Some are quite baffled by the ruling class’s response to COVID-19. Why has our ruling class suspended the laws of capitalism, closing down production, shutting down borders, ending the movement of peoples, foregoing share dividends? What has made those who normally have little concern for the well-being of their employees suddenly panic?



One obvious motivation looms large – the ruling class is not protected from this virus, unlike diseases of poverty like TB which is the most prevalent infectious disease that kills a million every year. So they have reason to be seriously worried. Historically public health legislation has been passed e.g. for water sanitation, clean air etc, when the ruling class also found themselves affected. Their most immediate worry they’ve got is catching it themselves, as all the money in the world can’t buy a cure right now. Their more long-term worry is going bust amid a global slump while governments are also racking up unsustainable levels of debt, and The operating laws of capitalism may be suspended for several weeks and perhaps several months but they cannot be broken permanently – hence the growing voices albeit still minority now saying lets return to normalcy and accept the inevitable deaths as the price worth paying. We can be sure all parties will be very keen to tell workers it’s safe to go back to work at the  earliest possible opportunity, as soon as international health regulators can be persuaded to back their play. Whether workers will be convinced is debatable, however once the temporary subsidies are removed they won’t have any choice in the matter.



But is the fear of getting the virus isn’t the overriding factor for the ruling class. We can suspect it’s the fear of a total collapse of the social order.



Capitalism remains stable as long as populations are acquiescent and docile, doing what they’ve been brought up to do, but that requires a quid pro quo from the rich, an income to cover food, rent or mortgages and utility bills, to provide healthcare and general security. You can always deprive or deny a proportion of the population but not all of it simultaneously, and certainly not globally.



The spectre that’s haunting the minds of our masters must be the possibility of massive discontent and social disorder breaking out worldwide. No wonder they’re panicking with visions of their Old Etonian chums being strung up from the lampposts. If that seems exaggerated let’s remember that the ruling class is the class-conscious class. They know what’s in store for them if the 99% rise up against them. They must be thinking that if they mess this up, they could be facing revolution in country after country from desperate workers who have nothing to lose. And we should add it is said that workers are just six meals away from the barricades.



It has been the voluntarism of working people that has kept society running. A new disease has gone viral – one that is spreading solidarity. There is a new epidemic – an outbreak of altruism – a rush to help one another. When this pandemic eventually subsides, those who had been previously ignored and neglected will they forget that their communities survived because of their contributions and sacrifices. Surely, there’ll be a day of reckoning?



This pandemic is most probably the greatest political and economic development in our life-time. It could also be one of socialists greatest opportunity in generations to present the case for a society of mutual solidarity. iI has empowered those who previously were seen as surplus to requirements. Capitalism has identified who really are the key workers to the operation of its economics. Surely the shelf-stackers, the uber and gig workers will not forget the lesson. The skills and scalpel of the surgeons was very much secondary to the scrubbing brush and disinfectant of the hospital cleaners.


It is not unprecedented for capitalism to give priority to something other than profit-making. They don’t in major wars where their priority is victory and they spend “what it takes” to achieve this. But once the war over, it’s a return to prioritising profit as usual. Which is what will happen after this public health crisis is over.


But as in post-WW2 Britain, people expect their sacrifices to be rewarded and received the Welfare State. Can we now expect to raise our economic demands and exercise our newly discovered power if we are refused.


What will capitalism do this time around? Will it opt, as it did in 2008 recession, for policies of austerity to restore profits and to pay back the debt of extra government spending? Or shall we recognise that it was cooperation and solidarity which got us through COVID-19. 


The task now for socialists is to use this coronavirus crisis to strengthen the case for socialism – that even with social distancing, and self isolation we are social animals and when push comes to shove, we will work together as citizens of the world. This pandemic is exposing the inequalities inherent within capitalist society and also to point out the cooperation and mutual aid initiatives being set up as positive signs of perhaps social changes that in future maybe stepping stones to socialism. Today, offers an opportunity for ourselves to promote our vision for the future, one of social ownership and social planning of production.



Promoted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN.

All content on this website CC BY-ND 4.0 with additional translation permissions

MENU

Navigation