It is always the poor who suffer the most

Those most vulnerable to the coronavirus are the elderly and people with serious underlying illnesses such as diabetes or cancer. But people who lack access to healthcare, or live in a setting where sanitary systems are not adequately developed, can also be at risk. 

Cecilia Tacoli, Principal researcher, Human Settlements, for International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said social distancing is “unrealistic”  for the world’s poor. 

Low-income settlements in cities of low- and middle-income nations are typically very densely populated, with very inadequate provision of basic infrastructure, [water and sanitation] and services [health services], all of which encourage the spread of communicable diseases,” she said.



“The vast majority of the urban poor do not have access to formal employment but rely on casual jobs which only provide meagre incomes. This means that current prescriptions – from washing hands frequently to social isolation and working from home – are unrealistic.”

Tacoli added that although it is clear that the elderly are most at risk globally, the vulnerability of older women could prove disastrous.

“It is worth keeping in mind that throughout the world about three billion people live in such settlements, and that in many cities they are the majority of the population. Older people, especially women, often play a very important role looking after children and ill relatives. These two observations are critical in considering worst-case scenarios,” she said.

“The high density of people and the inability to create effective social distancing are key factors in making transmission more likely,” said Eric Fevre, a professor of veterinary infectious diseases at the University of Liverpool.  Nor are slum communities isolated from the rest of the city, leaving them as vulnerable to the disease as elsewhere.

“In addition, I would add that such settlements are at risk because the people who live there have to be able to access other richer parts of the city for work,” Fevre told Al Jazeera. 

Many residents of such settlements live in extended families but have only a few rooms. Some may have only one. And if the area itself were quarantined, the situation could even become dangerous because any illness could spread quickly through the densely populated area.

Cancelled Holidays?

Under the Package Travel Regulations 2018 package holidaymakers whose trips are cancelled are entitled to all their money back within two weeks of the trip being called off.



An estimated two million overseas package holidays were due to depart in the first 30 days of the government’s warning against non-essential travel, running from 17 March to 16 April 2020. They have all been cancelled – representing around £1bn that the law insists should be paid back to consumers. Many hard-pressed holidaymakers, facing uncertainty about their own incomes, are understandably anxious to get the cash that is due to them.





But The Independent understands that the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, will agree to protect Britain’s beleaguered travel industry.





For travel firms earning no revenue, having to hand back payments for cancelled holidays immediately could force them out of business. Shapps is expected to agree to companies issuing credit notes enabling the holidaymaker to book a new trip within two years. Any customer who does not redeem the voucher can then claim the sum in cash. If the travel firm goes bust in the interim, financial protection will be provided by the government-backed Atol scheme.
The move will anger many travellers who entered into contracts that guaranteed a full refund if the operator called off the holiday. They will instead become unwilling creditors of the company. Until the rules change, a strict entitlement to a cash refund remains despite dozens of travel firms rejecting requests for refunds.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/package-holiday-refund-rules-suspended-abta-coronavirus-a9417261.html

Breaking the School Rules

Education leaders have told companies not to put profit over people, claiming attempts to stop the spread of coronavirus could fail if too many parents try to keep their children in school. Only children of key workers – including medics, police and food distribution staff – are eligible for places from Monday.

Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said, “My appeal to companies and other employers: please do not interpret the key workers lists liberally for your own ends. Do not put profit over people.”



The National Education Union joint general secretary, Dr Mary Bousted, said teachers were on the frontline. “They can only do this vital work if everyone plays fair.” 



Pets at Home argued that its workers were eligible under the criteria of providing key goods.

The document, signed by the company’s group legal director, states its workers qualify under the provision of hygienic and veterinary medicines. It says that its Vets4Pets business and other specialist veterinary staff are on the essential workers list. But it also claims that those working at its “Groom Room”, where a bath, brush and blow-dry for a dog starts at £20, are eligible, as well as store staff, customer services workers and other office support functions.



Betrayed Now the Renewal


During the mid- to late-1800s, Canada saw a boom in European immigration. The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 offered free and fertile homesteads for the eager, new settlers. 



Seventy treaties were signed between First Nations and the Canadian Crown between 1701 and 1923. An additional 25 ‘modern’ treaties have been signed since 1975. Collectively, these legally binding documents define the rights of Indigenous peoples and their relationship to the Canadian government, including any land and financial agreements, and rights to self-governance.



“The treaty that we have, and all of the treaties [in Canada] have been broken promises,” explains Carl Quinn, 66, of the Saddle Lake Cree Nation.




The sovereignty of the treaties has long been forgotten, and is barely taught in most schools – meaning that many Canadians are unaware of their significance and continued relevance today. But even when they were signed, they were interpreted very differently by the First Nations and the representatives of the Crown.



Many First Nation signatories were told of their contents via an interpreter because they could not read English. But some Indigenous languages and concepts were simply not translatable. There were also verbal agreements that were not included in some of the treaties, but were considered just as binding by the First Nations. 
According to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1996, European settlers brought new diseases against which First Nations had no defence: ” Many Aboriginal people became ill and died from infectious diseases that were foreign to them, such as influenza, polio, measles, smallpox and diphtheria.”



Bellies felt constant hunger, and disease was prevalent.



Fearing starvation as a result of the rapidly dwindling number of buffalo and in desperate need of medical help to treat smallpox, which had been introduced by the settlers and which had killed many Cree, in 1876, Saddle Lake entered into Treaty 6 with the Crown.
The signing of treaties between tribes and the Crown was meant to ensure an even split of resources, and in the case of Treaty 6, it meant the distribution of food and medicines to the almost depleted tribes – at least, that was the Cree understanding of the treaties. 



“The way that it [Treaty 6] was written was not what was agreed to,” says Carl. “We agreed to the sharing of the land, yes. And we told the Europeans to only take what you need from the land.”
The government began to force Indigenous people into reserves.



The eventual boundaries of Saddle Lake reserve 125 were completed in 1902 – drawn up by the federal government of Canada after three years of negotiations with the tribes – and amalgamated Saddle Lake, Whitefish Lake, Waskatenau and Blue Quill First Nations.



The First Peoples were herded onto the reserve’s designated tracks of land and stripped of any rights except for those stipulated by the Indian Act of 1876 – a patriarchal policy that has dictated the social, political, economic, spiritual and physical lives of First Nations up until the present day. 



“It [the Indian Act] was designed to oppress, designed to take the rights of the people away,” says Carl.
The Health Council of Canada described in its 2005 Health Status of Canada’s First Nation, Metis and Inuit Peoples report the effects of a once-nomadic people being constrained within reserves: “As a result of being confined to a limited land base, resources such as food and clothing materials, normally acquired by hunting, trapping and fishing and used for trading/bartering purposes, quickly shrunk. As access to and availability of these resources declined, major lifestyle, livelihood and diet changes occurred that affected the health status and well-being of the Aboriginal people.”

Within less than a decade of Treaty 6 being signed, a pass system was introduced, whereby residents of the reserves could only leave them with a permit issued by the local Indian agent responsible for imposing government policy on the reserves. This system would last for 60 years, only ending during World War II.





Friendship and the spirit and intent of the treaties was soon forgotten. It became one side against the other; with riches gained for the newcomers, while the Indigenous people were plunged into poverty and chaos. Sacred ceremonies, cultural practices and traditional teachings such as the sun dance ceremony and the sweat lodge and pipe ceremonies were banned by the federal government.

In 1862, an Indian residential school was opened in Saddle Lake. Others had been established across the country – part of an effort by the Canadian government to forcefully assimilate Indigenous children. Run by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, United and Presbyterian churches, among others, the schools were mandated for First Nations children by the Indian Act. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada estimates that 150,000 Inuit, First Nations and Metis children attended Indian residential schools between the 1870s and 1990s. Canada’s last residential school closed in 1996. In total, 139 residential schools operated across the country, and abuse was widespread. Children between the ages of four and 16 were ripped from their family homes by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and sent to live among the priests and nuns tasked by the federal government with forcing them to assimilate to the ways of life, languages, cultural practices and religion of the settlers.
During the testimony gathering process for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, many people spoke of the abuse they had endured as children. According to its interim report: “The Commission heard of discipline crossing into abuse: of boys being beaten like men, of girls being whipped for running away. People spoke of children being forced to beat other children, sometimes their own brothers and sisters. The Commission was told of runaways being placed in solitary confinement with bread-and-water diets and shaven heads. People spoke of being sexually abused within days of arriving at residential school. In some cases, they were abused by staff; in others, by older students. Reports of abuse have come from all parts of the country and all types of schools. The students felt they had no one to turn to for help. If they did speak up, often it was impossible to find anyone who would believe them.”
And the trauma did not end with the closure of the residential schools. From the 1950s to the 1980s, Indigenous children were taken from their families – in a practice known as the Sixties Scoop – and  by some estimates, more than 20,000 sent to live with non-Indigenous families, sometimes in other countries.

The Indigenous people had been betrayed.



Carl is hopeful. 



“Alberta is one of the most redneck, racist places in the country,” he says. “But I have big hope, today …. Europeans are really good at divide and conquer tactics, but everyone is connected. The more we talk about these kinds of things, people will realise we have more in common than what divides us.”




What about the homeless?

People without a home to self-quarantine in and without regular access to sanitation are likelier to contract the coronavirus. 



We have all heard what to do to minimize the risk of getting coronavirus: Wash your hands regularly, stay at home if possible, stay away from large crowds and keep a safe distance. But what if your home is a tent without running water? Or if you can only get a warm meal and a roof over your head in a shelter where the beds are packed together in cramped quarters? This is the difficult reality facing homeless people.  



In 2019, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area had roughly 9,800 homeless residents, according to a study by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The number fluctuates greatly and cannot be pinned down exactly. One thing is certain, however: a large number of people without a roof over their heads are facing even greater challenges since the coronavirus outbreak.



In New York City, the coronavirus has reached the homeless shelters. As of Thursday, there are seven cases in different shelters. 



The National Alliance to End Homelessness states on their website that “individuals experiencing homelessness include many older adults, often with compounding disabilities, who reside in large congregate facilities or in unsheltered locations with poor access to sanitation.” The coronavirus entry continues:  “Their age, poor health, disability, and living conditions make them highly vulnerable to illness.”



https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-and-the-homeless-washington-risks-people-dying-in-communal-shelters/a-52867913

Imagining A New World After the Pandemic




As COVID-19 rapidly spreads across the United States it exposes the nation’s flaws and weaknesses like never before. These are also extremely hazardous times and  also facilitating an economic meltdown. The coronavirus pandemic can make people realise that capitalism value profits over human life. This tragedy can eventually pave the way for a new and more just planet.  

 

The coronavirus pandemic threatens to exacerbate socioeconomic inequality where 45,000 Americans are dying each year because they do not have health coverage. 30 million people are living without medical insurance and 137 million are facing financial hardships due to medical debt. One in four US workers – more than 32 million – is not entitled to paid sick days. Millions of people who live from hand to mouth have already begun losing their livelihood and thus will be unable to pay rent or mortgage or put food on the table. Many of those who become ill do not have paid sick leave, and for those who do, it seldom covers their actual income.



Reform proposals that would have been swiftly dismissed as fringe left-wing fantasies merely a few weeks ago are now being discussed in the mainstream media and by even Republicans such as calls for some sort of universal basic income and the “helicoptering” of money to working people. Cities and states have halted evictions, put mortgage payments and student and medical debt on hold, and are now considering suspending utility bills, water shutoffs and bank fees.With the coronavirus pandemic poised to become a crisis in the nation’s prisons, jails and migrant detention centres, there are renewed calls for decarceration. Already non-violent offenders are being released.



Public health systems are finding it difficult and increasingly impossible during this pandemic to address the population’s needs, and many coronavirus patients and others suffering from ailments not related to the virus will not receive adequate treatment. This is the direct outcome of years of austerity, where public healthcare systems were starved of resources. In countries that do not have public health systems, like the United States, it is extremely likely that the predicament of those people who fall sick will be much, much worse. The situation of millions of refugees trapped in transit camps is even more catastrophic.
Across the world, streets are deserted as curfews and lockdowns multiply to try to stop the spread of COVID-19.

This pandemic can be an opportunity that exposes the capitalist economic structure which has rendered vast sections of the world’s population vulnerable. Solidarity and care for our planet must be our guiding principle for the future. It is time for a new forward-looking vision. It is time for a new beginning.





Government Relief – Not Enough

Millions in precarious, low-paid work feel overlooked by the government in its aid package. Millions of low-paid workers with precarious livings who stand to gain little from the government’s latest package of emergency measures, which will see company payrolls partly covered by the Treasury in an effort to stop the haemorrhaging of jobs in the economy’s hardest-hit sectors.



Jason Moyer-Lee, general secretary of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, says the government’s response is grossly inadequate because it excludes gig economy workers:

 “They are writing blank cheques here, there and everywhere and saying they will do ‘whatever it takes’, but precarious workers have been completely left out. There’s nothing in it for couriers or private hire drivers or those in other types of bogus self-employment. It is not clear if the measures even cover zero-hours workers.”



Ministers have urged the nation’s 4.8 million self-employed workers to apply for increased benefits if they lose work or fall ill with the virus. However, the measures announced on Friday only bring universal credit in line with statutory sick pay of £94.25 a week – which the health secretary, Matt Hancock, has admitted he couldn’t live on.



The government’s multibillion-pound intervention has come too late for some workers in the hospitality sector, with industry bodies estimating that around 500,000 jobs have been axed this month.



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/21/gig-economy-workers-despair-overlooked-government-aid-package



Social Solidarity

The world is in a crisis. The COVID-19  pandemic itself, and the economic crash that has been a consequence. When the pandemic first emerged, scientists did not yet even understand the nature of the new virus and it was impossible to assess the severity of the danger. That did not deter some politicians from reassuring the public and others from voicing the most alarmist predictions. One approach has been closing borders, scapegoating foreign countries, protecting the interests of elites and corporations. Another is the global grassroots mutual aid movement, rooted in cooperation and solidarity. This approach recognises that humanity’s well-being  transcends borders. To mitigate this current crisis, we must work together. 


While there may be a limited role for military resources to be used for civilian ends during this crisis, such as to staff hospitals and speed the supply of medical equipment, decades of prioritising defence instead of devoting resources towards human needs have left us woefully unprepared to meet this crisis.


Politically, America’s economic sanctions on countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are exacerbating the impacts and contributing to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. To keep them in place – and even to impose new sanctions at this time is unacceptable , counterproductiveinhumane, and, as this crisis reveals, dangerous for the entire world.


This crisis demands unprecedented levels of global cooperation. To achieve this, we must end our nationalist competitive mindset.


Rebecca Solnit’s 2010  A Paradise Built in Hell observes that in a profound crisis, most people will care for themselves and others, including both strangers and friends, and that “the image of the selfish, panicky, or regressively savage human being in times of disaster has little truth to it”


The 2011 book Community Resilience in Natural Disasters teach us that values of volunteerism, acts of courage, and other forms of selflessness are more often than not evident.


A 2018 New York Times article on preparing communities for a disaster quotes a New York commissioner who similarly asserts that “people are hard-wired to come together as a community after disasters.”


This community sentiment in the midst of a crisis serves to remind us of mankind’s capacity for altruism that has never really fitted with capitalism’s prevailing narrative of individualism. Our own health and wellbeing are dependent on the health and wellbeing of everyone else. Each of us is only as healthy as the least-healthy among us. Eliminating the profit motive will remove some of the major obstacle to the prevention of new viruses developing from epidemics to pandemics.




Reply to The coronavirus, bats, and deforestation

The main argument in the posted article seems to be that the untapped ‘natural world’ is a vast reserve of unknown diseases which capitalism risks unleashing on a defenceless global population. I don’t think this is the best argument against deforestation, but even in its own terms this view is problematical.



There are lots of exotic and isolated diseases with no cures, but they are already known about, and the reason they have no cures is only because almost hardly anybody catches them and therefore no R&D money has been put into them. Until fairly recently, Ebola was one of these. The degree to which these (capitalist) priorities would be changed in socialism is at best moot. It’s not a question of money, it’s a question of effort spent versus benefits gained.



Historically most new diseases have not come from the ‘natural world’ but from the activities of established human society, specifically animal domestication. Diseases that have jumped to us from domestic animals include:

Poultry 26, Rats / Mice  32, Horses 35, Dog 65, Pig 42, Sheep / Goats 46, Cattle 50

Note the absence of cats from this list. This illustrates the fact that diseases only proliferate in social animals, which are usually non-predators.



When the Spanish colonised the Americas they introduced all the childhood diseases of the Old World to a virgin population, where they instantly became killer diseases. I don’t know of a single killer disease being transferred in the other direction, from the new to the old (syphilis was suggested however I believe instances of this are recorded in Europe before the colonisation of the Americas).

For an introduction to the fascinating and counter-intuitive world of epidemiology I would recommend Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill (Anchor Press/Doubleday 1976). This takes as a starting point the notion that ‘everything is a parasite’, and for socialists presents a particularly interesting comparison of micro- (ie. germs) and macro-(ie. ruling class) parasitism and their effects on historical societies. For a less in-depth treatment of the subject you could try Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel (W.W.Norton, 1997).



An isolated, exotic disease has little chance to spread, and therefore no chance to mutate. In fact the more deadly it is, the worse its chances of spreading. In the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the virus had to be given a lot of help to spread via human activities (big funerals), and yet the epidemic had already tailed off by the time a vaccine was ready, so much so that medics had trouble finding enough live cases to test their vaccines on. This in turn meant drug companies lost a lot of money, which is also why they have been reluctant to come forward to sink money into coronavirus research.



Garden-variety viruses like Covid-19 spread and mutate constantly, and they are already better adapted, meaning that it takes fewer key mutations to make the species jump. This means they are much more dangerous to us than some new unknown disease from the uncharted wilds. Unlike most ‘stupid’ viruses, Covid-19 has pulled a blinder. It knows how to fool our immune system so it can operate under the radar, it blocks warning messages from infected cells to other cells, and it spell-checks its own RNA (only DNA normally does this) to prevent potential attacks on its data integrity (New Scientist, 21 March). The odds against an unknown, non-human-adapted disease being able to do all this purely by accident are astronomical, I would think.



Not that any of this justifies plundering the carbon sinks of the rainforests. But I think the argument of killer diseases is very weak compared to the argument of diversity, for example. We stand to get a lot more benefit (eg. new drugs) from the jungle, than toxic epidemics.



What is the socialist take-home (and stay-home) message from this? That it’s all capitalism’s fault would be an absurd simplification. It’s not immediately obvious to me how socialism would have been any better prepared. The WHO warned of such an epidemic in 2003 but nobody can develop a vaccine before the new virus has even appeared. One coronavirus is not like another. A single mutation can make all the difference in the world. 



A more realistic argument we could explore is that socialist society would be better equipped to deal with such a crisis once it had arisen, partly because it wouldn’t need to worry about a global economic crash, or unpaid wages, rents, mortgages or taxes, and partly because it’s geared to cooperation in the first place, as opposed to cooperation as a last resort.



Paddy

Reply to The coronavirus, bats, and deforestation

The main argument in the posted article seems to be that the untapped ‘natural world’ is a vast reserve of unknown diseases which capitalism risks unleashing on a defenceless global population. I don’t think this is the best argument against deforestation, but even in its own terms this view is problematical.



There are lots of exotic and isolated diseases with no cures, but they are already known about, and the reason they have no cures is only because almost hardly anybody catches them and therefore no R&D money has been put into them. Until fairly recently, Ebola was one of these. The degree to which these (capitalist) priorities would be changed in socialism is at best moot. It’s not a question of money, it’s a question of effort spent versus benefits gained.



Historically most new diseases have not come from the ‘natural world’ but from the activities of established human society, specifically animal domestication. Diseases that have jumped to us from domestic animals include:

Poultry 26, Rats / Mice  32, Horses 35, Dog 65, Pig 42, Sheep / Goats 46, Cattle 50

Note the absence of cats from this list. This illustrates the fact that diseases only proliferate in social animals, which are usually non-predators.



When the Spanish colonised the Americas they introduced all the childhood diseases of the Old World to a virgin population, where they instantly became killer diseases. I don’t know of a single killer disease being transferred in the other direction, from the new to the old (syphilis was suggested however I believe instances of this are recorded in Europe before the colonisation of the Americas).

For an introduction to the fascinating and counter-intuitive world of epidemiology I would recommend Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill (Anchor Press/Doubleday 1976). This takes as a starting point the notion that ‘everything is a parasite’, and for socialists presents a particularly interesting comparison of micro- (ie. germs) and macro-(ie. ruling class) parasitism and their effects on historical societies. For a less in-depth treatment of the subject you could try Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel (W.W.Norton, 1997).



An isolated, exotic disease has little chance to spread, and therefore no chance to mutate. In fact the more deadly it is, the worse its chances of spreading. In the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the virus had to be given a lot of help to spread via human activities (big funerals), and yet the epidemic had already tailed off by the time a vaccine was ready, so much so that medics had trouble finding enough live cases to test their vaccines on. This in turn meant drug companies lost a lot of money, which is also why they have been reluctant to come forward to sink money into coronavirus research.



Garden-variety viruses like Covid-19 spread and mutate constantly, and they are already better adapted, meaning that it takes fewer key mutations to make the species jump. This means they are much more dangerous to us than some new unknown disease from the uncharted wilds. Unlike most ‘stupid’ viruses, Covid-19 has pulled a blinder. It knows how to fool our immune system so it can operate under the radar, it blocks warning messages from infected cells to other cells, and it spell-checks its own RNA (only DNA normally does this) to prevent potential attacks on its data integrity (New Scientist, 21 March). The odds against an unknown, non-human-adapted disease being able to do all this purely by accident are astronomical, I would think.



Not that any of this justifies plundering the carbon sinks of the rainforests. But I think the argument of killer diseases is very weak compared to the argument of diversity, for example. We stand to get a lot more benefit (eg. new drugs) from the jungle, than toxic epidemics.



What is the socialist take-home (and stay-home) message from this? That it’s all capitalism’s fault would be an absurd simplification. It’s not immediately obvious to me how socialism would have been any better prepared. The WHO warned of such an epidemic in 2003 but nobody can develop a vaccine before the new virus has even appeared. One coronavirus is not like another. A single mutation can make all the difference in the world. 



A more realistic argument we could explore is that socialist society would be better equipped to deal with such a crisis once it had arisen, partly because it wouldn’t need to worry about a global economic crash, or unpaid wages, rents, mortgages or taxes, and partly because it’s geared to cooperation in the first place, as opposed to cooperation as a last resort.



Paddy