An Infodemic

“We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic,” World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned.

The WHO defines an infodemic as “an over-abundance of information, some accurate and some not, that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it”. 

The current infodemic has been worsened by the global scale of the health crisis and by the contributions of social media influencers and some world leaders. Brasil’s Bolsonaro has dismissed Covid-19 as a “fantasy” and a “small flu”, even as cases have been overwhelming hospitals, morgues and cemeteries across Latin America’s largest country. He recently also fired his health minister and joined protests in the capital Brasilia against shutdown measures imposed by governors.





According to a study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and the Oxford Internet Institute entitled, Types, claims and sources of Covid-19 misinformation, “false information spread by politicians, celebrities, and other prominent public figures” accounted for 69 percent of total engagement on social media, even though their claims made up just 20 percent of those included in the study’s sample.
With 78.4 million followers on Twitter and a TV audience that sometimes surpasses 10 million viewers for his daily briefings, Trump is one of the world’s leading global influencers. 

https://www.france24.com/en/20200426-conspiracy-theories-and-fake-news-fighting-the-covid-19-infodemic



War or Peace?

Global military expenditure reached $1.9 trillion  in 2019, the highest annual sum in real terms since 1988. That sum marked an increase of 3.6% over 2018, the largest annual increase since 2010, according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).



Of the 15 countries in the world with the highest defense budgets, six are NATO members: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Their combined military expenditure makes up for almost half of the world’s total figure. In 2019, the total military expenditure of NATO’s 29 member states was some $1.04 trillion. According to the SIPRI report, in 2019 the US was responsible for 38% of global military expenditure, totaling $732 billion. The increase over its 2018 budget alone amounted to the equivalent of Germany’s total expenditure in 2019. Experts  see the increase as a response to China, which ranks in second place after the US when it comes to military spending. Beijing’s budget contributed 14% of global military expenditure in 2019 and rose by more than 5% to $261 billion. China has been increasing its military expenditure steadily since 1994, but its budget has jumped by 85% since 2010. However, in terms of percentage of GDP, this has not changed considerably and almost always lies at 1.9%.



Max Mutschler from the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), a peace and conflict research institute explained, “Military expenditure is based on worst-case scenarios.” He told DW that while the public often perceives economic conflict between states to be in the foreground, the threat of military conflict remains very present in the background.



“With regard to the tension between the US and China, we do not know if there will be an armed conflict or not. So the militaries in both countries are preparing for this eventuality, and they’re very good when it comes to lobbying for more funds,” he said.



On the Asian continent, the military expenditure of  nuclear power India, is also considerable, rising last year by almost 7% to $71.1 billion.



“The tension with neighboring countries Pakistan and China are the main reasons that the Indian government has increased its expenditure so dramatically,” said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher with SIPRI.

Saudi Arabia lies well ahead of other Middle Eastern countries, spending $61.9 billion in 2019.



Military expenditure in other countries pales by comparison to the global top spenders. South American states spent “only” $53 billion in 2019, and Brazil alone was responsible for half of that.



Southeast Asian countries totaled around $41 billion.



And the entire continent of Africa spent some $42 billion.  Uganda, for example, increased its budget by 52%.



The COVID-19 pandemic shows that we’ve got our  priorities wrong. Keeping citizens safe is the greatest responsibility of any society. Citizens can only enjoy free, dignified lives when they are secure and prosperous. Since 2003, the world witnessed the SARS, H1N1, MERS, Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks. Nations, in others words, had ample time to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic. But governments  got their priorities wrong and invested billions in arms rather than readying for a potential pandemic disaster.  Increased military spending led to states diverting money away from health care systems, infrastructure networks and environmental protection measures. It is a fact long recognised and acknowledged even by capitalist politicians.

Former US President, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, said in 1953: 



“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Nation-states have failed to recognize the biggest threats to our safety: pandemics, climate change

and environmental destruction and prefer to guard their global trade routes or raw material sources. The pandemic we are facing has made very clear just how globalized our world is today. Something happening in far-away countries can swiftly spread and affect people across the globe. Globalization cannot be wished away. It is here to stay. That means the global community must cooperate not compete and enter into conflict. Only then can our world become a safe place for all and we see the end of armies and armament industries.





The Nationalism of Vaccines

The war on COVID-19 is haunted by lessons from the fight against another virus a decade ago. In the spring of 2009, the H1N1 swine flu virus emerged in the United States and Mexico and spread worldwide. Within weeks, the World Health Organization(WHO) declared it the first pandemic since 1968.
Wealthier governments that had provisional contracts with vaccine makers immediately exercised them, “effectively monopolizing the global vaccine supply,” according to Richard Hatchett, who managed U.S. pandemic flu policy under George W. Bush and returned to advise Obama during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. Hatchett now heads the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). The U.S. alone ordered 250 million doses, and Australia, Brazil, France, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Britain all had vaccine. 
Under pressure from the WHO, those countries ultimately committed to share 10% of their stockpiles with poorer nations. But due to production and distribution snarls, only about 77 million doses were shipped – far less than needed – and only after the disease had peaked in many regions.  If an effective vaccine emerges for the new coronavirus, a replay is possible, experts say. None of the global health authorities believes there will be sufficient supplies to satisfy the immediate demand. Governments will be under tremendous pressure to immunize their own citizenry and get life back to normal, so hoarding remains a serious risk. 



Ronald St. John, a physician who has held government posts on infectious disease control in the United States and Canada, expects a similar scenario with vaccines. “There is going to be a lot of self-interest in terms of the production,” he said. 



In the United States, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a federal agency that funds disease-fighting technology, explicitly gives preference to vaccine projects promising U.S. production capacity.

“We’re asking the American taxpayer to give a lot” to the vaccine effort, so it’s important to ensure U.S. access to any successful vaccine, said Bright, BARDA’s recent chief. 

Many other governments are pouring money into vaccine initiatives with expectations that they will be first in line if a viable vaccine emerges. 
Arcturus Therapeutics, a San Diego biotech, is receiving up to $10 million (8 million pounds) from the Singapore government to develop its mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine candidate in partnership with the Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School. If the vaccine is approved, Singapore gets first access, said Arcturus CEO Joseph Payne. Everything after that, he said, goes to “whoever pays for it.”

“Arcturus is not responsible for the ethics of distribution – governments are – but in order for governments to get the vaccine, they need to pay for it,” Payne said. “The country that will win is the country that stockpiles multiple vaccines at risk.”
In China, a major global producer of vaccines, the government is backing several coronavirus vaccine projects, raising the prospect it will inoculate its 1.4 billion people first.
The World Health Organization announced a “landmark collaboration” across the international community to raise $8 billion to accelerate the coronavirus vaccine development and ensure equitable access worldwide to any successful vaccine. Countries across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas announced their participation, but the United States and China, two of the world’s biggest pharma forces, did not.
“There will be no U.S. official participation,” a spokesman for the U.S. mission in Geneva told Reuters



Yuan Qiong, senior legal and policy advisor at Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Access Campaign explained “There shouldn’t be any patent monopoly and profiteering out of this pandemic.” 











Rohingya Boat People

The Bangladesh government has refused to allow some 500 Rohingya refugee women, men and children, fleeing Mayanmar and now stranded on board two fishing trawlers in the Bay of Bengal and who are believed to have been at sea for weeks to come ashore.



Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen told Al Jazeera that the Rohingya refugees are “not Bangladesh’s responsibility.”



The two trawlers have already been refused safe harbour by Malaysia.



Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the government of Bangladesh should immediately allow stranded refugees ashore and provide them with the necessary food, water, and healthcare.

“Bangladesh has shouldered a heavy burden as the result of the Myanmar military’s atrocity crimes, but this is no excuse to push boatloads of refugees out to sea to die,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at HRW. “Bangladesh should continue to help those at grave risk and preserve the international goodwill it has gained in recent years for helping the Rohingya.” It is believed that most of the Rohingya refugees on board the trawlers had left refugee camps in Bangladesh in an attempt to reach Malaysia, according to HRW.
HRW also said that “all countries, including Malaysia and Thailand, have the responsibility under international law to respond to boats in distress, enact or coordinate rescue operations within their search and rescue operations, and not to push back asylum seekers risking their lives at sea.”
Amnesty International last week called on Southeast Asian governments to launch immediate search and rescue operations for potentially hundreds more Rohingya refugees languishing at sea.
“All countries in the region have a responsibility to ensure the seas do not become graveyards for people seeking safety. Bangladesh cannot be left to address this situation alone. The fact that it is upholding its own obligations is not an excuse for others to abandon theirs,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia director at Amnesty International.



Norway’s Arctic Oil

The Norwegian government on Friday proposed an extension southwards of the so-called ice edge boundary, which marks the edge of the Arctic beyond which firms are barred from drilling for oil. But the plans stay just northerly enough to exclude areas for which licenses have already been granted — going against the advice issued by the government’s own scientists. 
Greenpeace said the government had set a “completely arbitrary and unscientific border” in order to put the interests of the oil industry ahead of the science. 
“The Norwegian government is acting like Donald Trump; ignoring scientific advice. The government is letting the Arctic and the climate down. Now the parliament must take responsibility,” Frode Pleym, the head of Greenpeace in Norway, told The Independent. Pleym said it was “high time” Norway transitioned away from fossil fuels in order to protect the climate and ultimately jobs. “Oil is rapidly becoming a part of the past and Norway’s oil exposed economy is suffering,” he said. “It is unacceptable to put the short-term interest of big oil before science, nature and people. Norway’s green credentials are at stake if this decision stands.”
Anthony Field, Arctic expert at WWF, accused the Norwegian government of choosing “oil drilling over nature”.
“Oil companies are seeking to profit from the exploitation of the region’s oil reserves. But not only would general operations have a negative impact, an accident at the edge of the sea ice would be disastrous for this vitally important ecosystem because of the sensitivity of key species to oil,” he said. “We want all oil companies – including British ones – to stop their exploration in this sensitive ecological region.”



Making money from death and suffering

UK arms sales to repressive regimes increased by £1bn last year compared with 2018. The increase, of more than 300%, has been condemned by arms control campaigners, who accuse the government of putting profits before human rights.
In 2019 the UK sold £1.3bn worth of weapons to 26 of the 48 countries that are classed as “not free” by Freedom House, the US government-funded pro-democracy institution. This was compared with just £310m in 2018. Business is brisk among those countries which the Foreign Office itself identifies as having poor human rights records.



In 2018, the UK sold £173m worth of arms to states on the Foreign Office list of “human rights priority countries” – nations identified as having human rights issues. But last year this increased to £849m, an increase of 390%.
Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “The UK government is always telling us how robust its arms export controls supposedly are, but these figures make clear that nothing could be further from the truth. The UK arms industry is dominated by human rights abusers, despots and dictatorships. The figures may be good for the arms dealers, but these weapons could be used in atrocities and abuses for years to come.”
2019 was a lucrative year in terms of licences to Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and UAE. The increase could have been significantly larger. A court ruling freezing arms sales to Saudi Arabia had a considerable impact on UK exports to the kingdom in the second half of last year.
And the figures do not include open licences which allow the export of an unlimited number of consignments over a fixed period, typically between three and five years.
In 2018, the Observer revealed that, for the previous five years, the UK had been selling missiles and bombs to the Saudis under the open licence system.
“These sales are only possible because of the complicity of the UK government, which has consistently put arms company profits ahead of human rights,” Smith said. “UK-made fighter jets and bombs are doing terrible damage in Yemen. The war has killed tens of thousands of people and depleted the healthcare system in a time of crisis.”






Humanity’s way forward

“Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew….It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.” Arundhati Roy
With the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, human society faces a moment of reckoning. No country has been spared and all have suffered in some shape or form. The lockdowns have deprived millions of daily wage earners pushing many families into hunger. Many small farmers continue to work their fields or rear their livestock but their local markets have shut down making it difficult for them to sell their produce and harvests have been left rotting in the fields. Fishing communities have also suffered unable to transport their catch to towns and cities. The global corporate Big Ag food industry which relies on international supply chains to function has been hit even harder because of travel bans affecting labour supply and international distribution and their normal reserves in storage are running out. Singapore, for example, imports some 90 percent of its food; Iraq, which used to be the breadbasket of the Middle East, also gets more than 80 percent of its food from abroad. For global food security, the pandemic bodes ill. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are warning of the risk of worldwide “food shortages”.

For socialists, the food supply, a necessity for all, should rely on cooperation and not competition. Principles of solidarity should determine its production and distribution. Socialism which promotes life over profits must become the foundation of human civilisation. We are not living in such a world now, but we surely can. It is now the time to start building an equitable and just society. Wealth is in the hands of a few while the majority struggle simply to get by. People across the world are turning to their governments for desperately needed health services and financial support. The pandemic is thus strengthening state power and nationalism in many countries.



But now the inequalities and injustices are no longer invisible. Some are beginning to ask why are some rich and others poor (nations and people),  why are some privileged and most not. Some now see that our system is designed to perpetuate rather than eradicate social divisions, and that must be changed.




The pandemic is merely bringing to the fore the threat food production faces from the climate crisis where much of the world will face disruptions of supplies of food and water. We need desperately to create a fairer society. We all deserve a better world where our well-being comes before profits. We can make it happen but we have no time to waste. We have a much work to do even as we are at present largely confined to our homes. Our problems are solvable. It’s so simple. All that is required is a shift in attitude, a switch in thinking and the start to take action. COVID-19 may be the trigger for the change in the way we want to live our lives.

COVID19 – Can the Market Bring the Cure?

Jane Halton is a former secretary of Australia’s health and finance departments, is chair of the coalition for epidemic preparedness innovations, a global body playing a critical role in financing and coordinating Covid-19 vaccine development.
The question she and  her team come back to time and again is when the successful vaccines emerge, what can be done to ensure they don’t simply go to those with the deepest pockets? If market power is allowed to dictate access, how can those most vulnerable to Covid-19 be assured of protection?

“We are acutely aware of this and it is literally a topic that is being discussed on a daily basis,” she tells the Guardian. “Because to us it is just unacceptable that there is not fair access to a successful vaccine across the world’s population. “The notion that this would be a question of going to the highest bidder, to us is just totally unacceptable.”
A paper published in the Lancet last month warned of the significant prospect that wealthy countries would monopolise global supply of Covid-19 vaccines.
“This risk is real,” the paper warned. “Such an outcome would result in a suboptimal allocation of an initially scarce resource.”

The world has witnessed what happens when the market is left to dictate vaccine distribution. During the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, wealthy nations negotiated large advance orders of the vaccine, effectively crowding out poorer countries.

The West African ebola crisis – an outbreak that killed

11,325 people – exposed its own galling market failure. As the death toll in West Africa grew and grew, big pharmaceuticals could not see a way to recoup the considerable losses they would face attempting to find a vaccine.



The leader of Britain’s ebola response, Adrian Hill, said there was simply no “big market” to make it worthwhile for massive corporations.

“There was no business case to make an ebola vaccine for the people who needed it most,” he said.

The coalition for epidemic preparedness innovations explained at the time , “The world’s response to this crisis fell tragically short. A vaccine that had been under development for more than a decade was not deployed until over a year into the epidemic. That vaccine was shown to be 100% effective, suggesting that much of the epidemic could have been prevented. It was evident that we needed a better system to speed the development of vaccines against known epidemic threats.”
Halton predicts the pressure to secure access to successful vaccines will be “astronomical”.

“One of the things I’m worried about is vaccine nationalism and I’ve started to use that terminology when I talk to people,” she says. “We’ve been worrying about this issue now for months and months…What is a mechanism to ensure equitable access?”
For private companies, vaccine development is considered risky, protracted and hugely expensive. Companies are faced with the prospect of spending extraordinary amounts to develop vaccines, with a low likelihood of success.
“As a company, you are not going to spend the hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars that are needed to develop a vaccine,” Halton says. “One, because you think your chances of being successful are about 5%. Secondly, because you don’t even think there’s going to be a market for it. So this part of market failure is completely understandable. And that’s why the coalition for epidemic preparedness innovations was set up.”
The World Health Organisation announced it planned to design mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution.

“While we’re looking for vaccines, unless we break the barriers to equitable distribution of the products, whether it’s vaccines or therapeutics, we will have a problem, so we need to address the problem ahead of time,” WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said. “There should not be a divide between the haves and the have-nots.”



Lock and Load against Lockdown





“Reopen America” protest groups in various US states against recent coronavirus lockdown measures were set up by conservative gun lobbyists. The coordinated effort seems to be driven by the apparent long-term aim of building a larger base of support for gun law relaxation.

Between April 8 and 16, at least 34 website addresses  were purchased. These web addresses automatically redirect to pages on pro-gun sites. The registration of so many reopen website addresses in a short period of time led social media users to conclude that the campaign was “astroturfing” — the practice of making a campaign appear grassroots while withholding that it was organized by a single entity.  These reopen websites were for Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, each of which has laws allowing open carry of firearms with a permit, with five tracing back to one family in the American Midwest, the Dorrs. These laws are not loose enough for the Dorrs, who are ultra-conservative pro-gun political campaigners.

For example, the “reopen” websites for Ohio, Pennsylvania and Minnesota were registered in quick succession, indicating that they were bought in the same transaction. They also all share the same Google Analytics tracking ID, which is a unique code used to track webpage visits. Websites for Iowa and Wisconsin also use this code, in addition to having been set up on the same day. The active “reopen” websites owned by the Dorrs redirect to anti-lockdown protest pages, mostly on the Dorrs’ pro-gun websites. On top of this, they look the same and contain similar, often identical text. Analyzing the inner workings of the website, namely the HTML code files, helps identify more connections to other pages and groups the Dorrs manage or people they collaborate with.

Unrestricted carry (sometimes referred to as permitless carry or constitutional carry) is already law in a number of US states, but not in any of the states for which the Dorrs have bought “Reopen America” domains. Based on the locations of these political campaigns and their previous political activity, it would appear that the Dorrs have a long-term goal of building a bigger supporter base for the gun lobby, using the coronavirus pandemic unrest as a vehicle.

This widespread online activity has contributed toward the impression that there is large-scale opposition to the lockdown measures. In contrast, nearly 70% of Republican voters and 95 percent of Democratic voters supported a national stay-at-home order, according to recent research by Quinnipiac, a nationwide independent public opinion poll.



https://www.dw.com/en/revealed-how-the-us-gun-lobby-exploits-the-coronavirus-pandemic-to-further-its-aims/a-53230399

From Pandemic Emergency to the Emergence of Socialism

We should not return to the type of society that enabled this pandemic to emerge and spread. We must instead create a new socially just and sustainable world. We, working people, can shut the system down and we have the numbers to break the power of capitalist class and their State. We should send a clear signal that things cannot and must not return to normal. We must transform our broken and inequitable society, and build a new society run by and for us – the working class majority. We seek a world safe not for profit-making, but for people.



Capitalists maximise profits. Capitalism has proved extremely inefficient in its response to the virus. Why return to such a normal? Why fix capitalism yet again, given its cyclical crashes and  costly requirement to keep fixing it? Absurd, isn’ it? The problem is the structure of capitalism and not the particular management team running the capitalist enterprise. Capitalists either cannot or will not hire because to do so is not profitable for them. Why reproduce capitalism that so undemocratically organizes its businesses. Why replace one group of employer dictators with another, when a better alternative exists? Why revert back to a profit system that generates social divisions and inequality, which is regularly unstable?



We must use this opportunity to create a global economy that meets our basic needs while at the same time securing sustainable communities for humanity and a healthy environment for both people and planet. We must end the power of profit-maximising corporations and self-organise production, providing for everyone and assuring everyone to the necessities of life. We can achieve and we deserve a better society than the one we presently have. We can’t know for sure what a successful socialist revolution will look like, but we can say that it will definitely be “ the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority

The Socialist Party rejects capitalism in all its disguises and there is no equivocation on its part — no acceptance of government ownership nor even cooperatives. Ours is the only message worth listening to, and the only one that holds a real promise of the final end of privilege, insecurity, poverty and oppression in all its forms. Let us work  for the great day when the capitalist social parasites who have paralysed society will be banished into the limbo of the past.