• The (Low) Cost of Preventing the next pandemic

    Thus far, COVID has cost at least $2.6 trillion and may cost ten times this amount. It is the largest global pandemic in 100 years. Six months after emerging, it has killed over 600,000 people and is having a major impact on the global economy. “How much would it cost to prevent this happening again? And what are the principal actions that need to be put in place to achieve this?” asks one expert. His research team offers an answer: $30 billion a year.

  • Combating a Pandemic Is 500 Times More Expensive Than Preventing One

    Experts say that the failure to protect tropical rain forests has cost trillions of dollars stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, which has wreaked economic havoc and caused historic levels of unemployment in the United States and around the world. These experts say that significantly reducing transmission of new diseases from tropical forests would cost, globally, between $22.2 and $30.7 billion each year. In stark contrast, they found that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely end up costing between $8.1 and $15.8 trillion globally—roughly 500 times as costly as what it would take to invest in proposed preventive measures.

  • The Science Behind the Alternatives to Lockdowns

    Four leading Israeli researcher argue that a correct reading of the Swedish experiment of a more relaxed approach shows that, despite early localized setbacks, it has been a success – and its success helps explode the three myths which have led governments around the world to impose unnecessary lockdowns. Sarah Knapton writes that an official U.K. government report says that more than 200,000 people could die from the impact of lockdown. Robert Peston writes that the cost of COVID-19 in the U.K. was unnecessarily high, and Yoon K. Loke and Carl Heneghan write that in the U.K., the number of COVID-19-related deaths is so high because “no one can ever recover from COVID-19”: A patient discharged from the hospital after being treated for COVID-19 will still be counted as a COVID death — even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.

    It is difficult to think of another country that has botched the response to the coronavirus more spectacularly than the United States. Joel Achenbach, William Wan, Karin Brulliard, and Chelsea Janes write that the death rate from COVID-19-19 in the United States looks like that of countries with vastly lower wealth, health-care resources, and technological infrastructure, adding: “If there was a mistake to be made in this pandemic, America has made it.” Michael D. Shear, Noah Weiland, Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman, and David E. Sanger write that the roots of the U.S. current inability to control the pandemic can be traced to mid-April, when the White House began to focus on shifting responsibility for leading the fight against the pandemic – which was becoming a public health, economic, and political disaster — from the White House to the states.

    Wearing a face mask has become a political issue. J. Alexander Navarro writes that this was also the case during the 1918 pandemic. Beginning Monday, wearing face masks in public will be mandatory in France, and Valentin Hamon-Beugin writes [in French] that several French start-ups have developed technologies which would allow the authorities to monitor citizens’ compliance with the new rule.

  • The Right Approach to Getting out of the Current Crisis

    Four leading Israeli researchers call for a realistic, science-based, myths-free approach to the coronavirus crisis. They argue that the Swedish approach, despite early localized setbacks, has not only been a success – it also helps explode the three myths which have led governments around the world to impose economically ruinous and socially destructive lockdowns. These myths are: 1) That the immunity triggered by infections does not last long, and hence cannot be relied upon to create herd immunity; 2) that in order to achieve herd immunity through infection-triggered immunity, at least 60 percent of the population must be infected; and 3) that the number of death resulting from wider infection would higher than the number of deaths resulting from economic lockdown and social restrictions.

  • Herd Immunity: Why the Figure Is Always a Bit Vague

    Nearly 100 years ago, two British researchers, William Topley and Graham Wilson, were experimenting with bacterial infections in mice. They noticed that individual survival depended on how many of the mice were vaccinated. So the role of the immunity of an individual needed to be distinguished from the immunity of the entire herd. Adam Kleczkowski writes in The Conversation that, fast-forwarding a century, and the concept of “herd immunity” is now widely discussed in government dispatches and newspaper articles. But what does it actually mean? “When a disease such as COVID-19 spreads through the population, it leaves some people immune, at least in the short term,” he writes. “The people who become infected later will increasingly have contact with these immune people and not with the susceptible ones. As a result, the risk of infection is reduced and eventually the disease stops spreading. This might happen even if some people in the population are still susceptible. Vaccination can be used to protect susceptible people and thereby hasten the decline of the epidemic. It can also be used to stop the virus from spreading in the first place.”

  • Lockdown May Cost 200,000 Lives, U.K. Government Report Shows

    More than 200,000 people could die from the impact of lockdown and protecting the NHS, an official government report shows. Sarah Knapton writes in The Telegraph that as national restrictions were imposed, experts from the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office forecast the collateral damage from delays to healthcare and the effects of recession arising from the pandemic response. It estimated that in a reasonable worst case scenario, around 50,000 people would die from coronavirus in the first six months of the pandemic, with mitigation measures in place. But in the report published in April they calculated that up to 25,000 could die from delays to treatment in the same period and a further 185,000 in the medium to long term - amounting to nearly one million years of life lost. 

  • Why No One Can Ever Recover from COVID-19 in England

    One reason why the number of COVID-19-related deaths in England is consistently higher than in neighboring Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is due to a statistical flaw in the way that PHE compiles ‘out of hospital’ deaths data. Yoon K Loke and Carl Heneghan write in The Spectator that by PHE (Public Health England) definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness. A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death, even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later. “It’s time to fix this statistical flaw that leads to an over-exaggeration of COVID-associated deaths,” they write. “One reasonable approach would be to define community COVID-related deaths as those that occurred within 21 days of a COVID positive test result.”

  • Why Did the U.K.’s Coronavirus Response Go So Wrong?

    The cost of COVID-19 in the UK, in 45,000 lives lost and considerably more if ‘excess’ deaths are included, in long term illness for tens of thousands, and in damage to our prosperity, is changing everything. Robert Peston asks in The Spectator: “Did the shock have to be so great? Could the government have done more to protect us?” There is one question that overarches all the rest, he writes, and it is why ministers and officials allowed the risk to build and build and build, during February and early March.

  • Inside Trump’s Failure: The Rush to Abandon Leadership Role on the Virus

    The roots of the nation’s current inability to control the pandemic can be traced to mid-April, when the White House embraced overly rosy projections to proclaim victory and move on. What is more, Michael D. Shear, Noah Weiland, Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman, and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times, members of the corona crisis group, meeting in the office of Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff every morning at 8:00am, saw their immediate role as practical problem solvers, but their ultimate goal was to shift responsibility for leading the fight against the pandemic – which was becoming a public health, economic, and political disaster — from the White House to the states.

  • The Crisis that Shocked the World: America’s Response to the Coronavirus

    “Six months after the coronavirus appeared in America, the nation has failed spectacularly to contain it,” Joel Achenbach, William Wan, Karin Brulliard, and Chelsea Janes write in the Washington Post. “The country’s ineffective response has shocked observers around the planet.” They write that the death rate from covid-19 in the United States looks like that of countries with vastly lower wealth, health-care resources and technological infrastructure, adding: “If there was a mistake to be made in this pandemic, America has made it.”

  • Mask Resistance During a Pandemic Isn’t New – in 1918 Many Americans Were “Slackers”

    There’s a clear consensus that Americans should wear masks in public and continue to practice proper social distancing. J. Alexander Navarro writes in The Conversation that  while a majority of Americans support wearing masks, widespread and consistent compliance has proven difficult to maintain in communities across the country. “I’ve researched the history of the 1918 pandemic extensively,” he writes. “At that time, with no effective vaccine or drug therapies, communities across the country instituted a host of public health measures to slow the spread of a deadly influenza epidemic: They closed schools and businesses, banned public gatherings and isolated and quarantined those who were infected. Many communities recommended or required that citizens wear face masks in public – and this, not the onerous lockdowns, drew the most ire.”

  • How French Technology Can Control Wearing of a Mandatory Mask

    The French government announced that as of Monday, wearing a face mask in enclosed public places will become mandatory. How would it be possible to check whether thousands of people are following the government’s instructions or not? Several French start-ups have developed solutions which are now being tested. Valentin Hamon-Beugin writes in Le Figaro [in French] that some companies have developed tools which rely on the use of CCTVs. Software is installed in the cameras, and using artificial intelligence, it detects masked faces. “It’s not about facial recognition. We simply recognize the human form behind the mask, but we don’t have access to the identity of the people filmed,”explains Virginie Ducable, project manager at RedLab, a Normandy-based start-up. No image is stored on servers, only statistical data is sent to the client. “These statistics can serve them in a concrete way. For example, if they find that too few people are wearing a mask at any given time, they will be able to automatically launch voice announcements urging them to follow health guidelines,” she adds. Olivier Gualdoni, CEO of Drone Volt, whose subsidiary, Aérialtronics, is working on a similar project, “Our solution aims to prevent, not to punish. We are completely opposite of the repression stereotypes associated with artificial intelligence.”

  • Contact Tracing’s Long, Turbulent History Holds Lessons for COVID-19

    To get the COVID-19 pandemic under control and keep it from flaring up again, contact tracing is critical, but persuading everyone who tests positive to share where they’ve been and with whom relies on trust and cooperation. Amy Lauren Fairchild, Lawrence O. Gostin, and Ronald Bayer write in The Conversation that contact tracing’s long, contested history shows how easily both can be shattered. Looking back at the reasons for resistance to contact tracing as the U.S. struggled to contain epidemics in the past can help us understand the first signs of pushback against contact tracing in the COVID-19 response, as well as the public health consequences.

  • With Coronavirus Antibodies Fading Fast, Vaccine Hopes Fade, Too

    Disturbing new revelations that permanent immunity to the coronavirus may not be possible have jeopardized vaccine development and reinforced a decision by scientists at UCSF and affiliated laboratories to focus exclusively on treatments. Peter Fimrite writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that several recent studies conducted around the world indicate that the human body does not retain the antibodies that build up during infections, meaning there may be no lasting immunity to COVID-19 after people recover. Strong antibodies are also crucial in the development of vaccines. So molecular biologists fear the only way left to control the disease may be to treat the symptoms after people are infected to prevent the most debilitating effects, including inflammation, blood clots and death.

     

  • COVID-19 Could Cause Psychosis

    Scientists have now observed that COVID-19 can apparently trigger a wide range of psychiatric symptoms, in addition to neurological ones. It was already known that many patients complain of smell and taste disorders. Strokes, epileptic seizures, paralysis, headaches, and even brain infections have also been reported. Katherine Rydlink writes in Der Spiegel [in German] that several studies now suggest that COVID-19 can also trigger psychosis. A survey of British doctors, the results of which were published in the specialist journal Lancet Psychiatry, showed that around 31 percent of the 125 patients with COVID-19 reported that they had psychiatric disorders. Ten patients suffered from a new onset of psychosis, six from dementia-like disorders, and four patients were diagnosed with an affective disorder, that is, manic or depressive episodes.