As-of November 15th, more than one person per thousand had already died from the Covid-19 virus (coronavirus-19) in the nations of
and in the U.S. states of
- New Jersey (1.9 per thousand)
- New York (1.7 per thousand)
- Massachusetts (1.5 per thousand)
- Connecticut (1.3 per thousand)
- Louisiana (1.3 per thousand)
- Mississippi (1.2 per thousand)
- Rhode Island (1.2 per thousand)
(Nationwide, the U.S. death-rate is 759 per million or .759 per thousand.)
Here are the nations with over 5 million population that have the lowest death-rates from the disease:
- Cambodia (0)
- Laos (0)
- Burundi (1 per 12,015,509)
- Taiwan (1 per 3,404,638)
- Vietnam (1 per 2,790,141)
- Papua (1 per 1,286,790)
- Thailand (1 per 1,164,395)
- Sri Lanka (1 per 487,406)
- Niger (1 per 355,300)
- Uganda (1 per 347,734)
- Rwanda (1 per 326,650)
- Mozambique (1 per 318,834)
- Burkina Faso (1 per 315,011)
- China (1 per 310,869)
- DRC (1 per 286,454)
- Benin (1 per 284548)
- Singapore (1 per 209,535)
- Ivory Coast (1 per 211,189)
- South Sudan (1 per 190,525)
- New Zealand (1 per 200,084)
Here are the U.S. states with the lowest death-rates from the disease:
- Vermont (1 per 10,576; or .95 per ten thousand, or .095 per thousand)
- Maine (1 per 8,617)
- Alaska (1 per 7,951 — the explosion of the disease started only recently there)
- Hawaii (1 per 6,378)
- Oregon (1 per 5,723)
In order properly to understand these numbers (such as the low death-rates in some African countries), an important underlying variable is the median age of the land’s population, because, for example, the median age for Burundi is only 17, and, therefore, San Marino, where the median age is 44.4, is naturally likely to have a vastly higher death-rate from this disease. Apples should be compared with apples, not with oranges. However, the median age in Vermont is 42.8 (America’s third-highest), and in Maine is 44.9 (America’s highest), and yet both states have America’s lowest two death-rates from this disease; so, governmental policies and their public acceptance and enforcement can be even more important than is the physical population. Nature isn’t everything; nurture can be an even bigger determinant of success or failure.
Furthermore, all three of the highest death-rate countries have incredibly polarized and therefore dysfunctional ‘democratic’ governments, and this means that they are especially likely to fail to have unity — and therefore effectiveness — in responding to an emergency, which this evolving event is. Slow response and adjustment to it is then like no response, because it comes too late, in an emergency situation. Moreover, San Marino’s economy is at least 50% tourism-based, which is the sector that is the hardest hit by the pandemic, as a consequence of which, the pressures to underestimate the pandemic’s danger are especially large there.
As that same website which I’ve cited for the coronavirus death-rates also shows, worldwide the daily death rate from the disease, which was 67 on 2 March 2020, soared to 8,534 by the time of 17 April 2020, and didn’t exceed that number until 4 November 2020 at 9,152, despite the world’s having been taking increasing measures to reduce the spread of the disease. However, since the global death-rate from the virus has finally broken through the initial peak of 8,534, we can now expect either greatly increased measures to be taken against the disease’s spread, or else the daily death-rate from it to be soaring, in at least the near-term future.
If the daily death-rate from it will be soaring in the near-term future, then the public will become increasingly afraid to be anywhere with strangers; and, consequently, all modes of employment that require employees to be physically near strangers will need to pay higher and higher wages in order to be able to remain in business, and the local economy will therefore be in a downward spiral unless and until that situation becomes reversed.
Consequently, the economy will likely be hit hard now, either way. During an epidemic, harm to the economy is inevitable in the short term, regardless of whether the government acts or not. But during the long term, carefully calibrated scientifically calculated measures to reduce the spread of the epidemic are optimal (for the long term benefits), and anything that impedes this is therefore a threat against the entire public. Whereas a threat against the general public is acceptable to a psychopath (or “sociopath”) and is consistent with pure capitalism (“libertarianism” or “neoliberalism”), it is not acceptable to a democratic socialist (“social democratic”) person, or to a patriot in a country that asserts the general welfare to be among its fundamental priorities (such as the U.S. Constitution does in its General Welfare Clause and especially in its most-fundamental passage, the Preamble, which asserts the ultimate objectives which that Constitution is directed at serving). Therefore, in the latter type of country, pure capitalism is actually unpatriotic, and democratic socialism is obligatory for the Government to adhere to, regardless of whether or not that country’s existing leaders adhere to it, or publicly acknowledge the fact that their Constitution is actually social-democratic, and not (and certainly not purely) capitalistic.
(For examples: Abraham Lincoln said: “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” So, he certainly was a social democrat. And Lincoln’s hero, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, on 12 November 1816, to his long-time friend, Dr. George Logan of Philadelphia, about the “profligacy” of England’s government, wasting resources to prop up its international corporations, which Jefferson said had brought about “the ruin of its people” in order to benefit those aristocrats. He said, “This ruin [in England] will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall, on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe [meaning creating the catastrophe (by corrupting the government), not meaning to prepare for the catastrophe]. I hope we shall take warning from the [English] example [e.g., the British East India Company] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” So, he too was hostile toward capitalism and favorable toward democratic socialism. America’s Founders — including even its last Founder, Lincoln — supported democracy, and opposed aristocracy, or rule by the controlling owners of corporations. But today’s America — in regard to both its Democratic Party and its Republican Party — is controlled by its billionaires; and, so, this nation is now definitely an aristocracy, instead of a democracy.)
One argument that is being put forth for pure capitalism regarding this virus is “herd immunity,” the idea (which has been endorsed in the neoliberal Council on Foreign Relations’s prestigious journal Foreign Affairs, and also by U.S. President Donald Trump), which is that if a sufficiently high percentage of the population become infected with it and survive, then they will automatically be immune from catching the disease in the future, and so anyone else (the never-infected) will become less likely to catch the disease from others. Like other libertarian (or “neoliberal) thinking, it trusts to nature as being optimal, and accepts unlimited “survival of the fittest,” and rejects social democracy or any general-welfare constitution (such as America has and which is being routinely violated by America’s own Government). However, the assumption that everyone who survives an infection from this virus is immune against becoming infected with it again, has not been established, and there are also many other falsehoods in applying the “natural herd immunity” concept to this particular virus — a virus whose epidemiological characteristics are still not yet understood. As National Geographic recently explained, “Banking on natural infection to control the outbreak would lead to months, if not years, of a dismaying cycle in which cases subside and then surge.” Furthermore, even if the idea that a natural herd immunity might become able to protect a nation’s population, would not a synthetic herd immunity from an effective vaccine be preferable — and much faster? It will prevent the millions of deaths, and even more millions of cases, that would be suffered until a natural herd-immunity exists — if such a natural herd immunity ever will exist. This is the purpose of the policies in the lands that have thus far been the most effective at keeping down the amounts of disease and death from Covid-19. This is a holding action, so as to save the health and the lives of millions of people who would otherwise be unnecessarily wasted while the world waits for a vaccine. The “natural herd immunity” approach isn’t only psychopathic, it is grossly inefficient.
A personal friend emailed me with objections against my opposition to libertarian (or “neoliberal”) policies regarding coronavirus-19 (covid-19). He especially argued that we both share views that the Government in our own country is deeply corrupt, and I replied:
That’s irrelevant because the data convince me that the types of policies that countries such as China and Taiwan and Vietnam and Cambodia and Myanmar and then New Zealand and then Vermont pursued — all with strong compliance from their respective publics — have worked, and that the policies that countries such as U.S. and Brazil and Belgium and Chile pursued have failed. Peru is an especially interesting case because its President wanted to impose the necessary measures but wasn’t able to, for many reasons, but especially because nothing was able to “create this new culture of respect for the rules to learn how to live with the virus” (as the euphemistic BBC obliquely phrased the core reality behind Peru’s failure). The situation in Peru was the exact opposite of the situation in Vermont, where the public virtually pushed the Governor by accusing him of NOT imposing masking requirements etc. at the very beginning, and he quickly recognized and rectified his error and as a result Vermont quickly became — and has since remained — the #1 state in controlling the spread of this virus. Success needs both the right leadership and the right public, and failure has resulted where either or both were lacking.
I said in response to his statement: “I really can not sympathize with those who are fearing for their own lives because of a virus with a 99% survival rate. They shouldn’t be doing the thinking for the rest of us.”:
I couldn’t disagree more with that libertarian viewpoint. Public health — especially when the issue is a communicable disease, an epidemic or a potential epidemic — relies (above all) on the obligation of every individual in the society to NOT engage in behaviors that HELP to spread the disease. Vaccination is an obligation and not ONLY a right in such a situation. When a vaccine doesn’t yet exist, then the obligation — of every individual in the society to NOT engage in behaviors that HELP to spread the disease — isn’t an obligation to be vaccinated (since that’s not yet even possible) but it is instead an obligation to adhere to masking requirements and other necessary behaviors to minimize the spread of the communicable disease. The libertarian attitude produces mass-injury, mass-death, mass-disability, and mass-unemployment, in handling a communicable disease, where the OBLIGATION to society is not recognized, but only the individual RIGHT is recognized — that is psychopathic and irresponsible.
Furthermore: you are false to say that this is only “a virus with a 99% survival rate”: it is a vastly more-contagious virus than the Spanish flu which was the other mega-pandemic since 1900, but it has a lower mortality-rate; and, so, for you to focus only on the latter (the fatality-rate) is blind to an important half of the reality regarding this virus.
Already, 251,256 Americans have died from this new virus and 11,226,038 have been diagnosed as being ill from it and many who have survived the initial illness are having potentially life-threatening organ-failures from it and tens of millions of Americans reasonably fear going to work as barbers or restaurants or hotels or medical workers etc., and yet you say “I really can not sympathize with those who are fearing for their own lives because of a virus with a 99% survival rate. They shouldn’t be doing the thinking for the rest of us.” That statement isn’t only blind to half the reality about this virus but is callous, which I know that you are not. So, it shocked me. (Furthermore, already over 2% of Americans who have been diagnosed as having this disease have died from it and that percentage keeps rising; so whether in the final analysis this plague will kill a higher percentage of the world than the Spanish flu did is still an open question, and vaccines against it will largely determine the answer.)
You instead are choosing to dismiss the relevant data, which are the actual policy-outcomes in the 200+ countries throughout the world — including different policies in each of those countries.
Perhaps you think that the data that China which has 60 cases per million residents and 3 deaths per million residents from this virus and that America which has 33,725 cases per million residents and 757 deaths per million residents from this virus should be ignored. Perhaps you think that the data that Vermont which has 4,556 cases per million residents and 95 deaths per million residents from this virus and that North Dakota which has 82,502 cases per million residents and 953 deaths per million residents from this virus should be ignored. Those are all policy-outcomes. Each of those lands has its own policy, and those are the outcomes from it. I have looked at what the policies are, and, to me, the idea that those data should be ignored in evaluating those policies is foolish in the extreme. I am no expert in epidemiology and don’t pretend to be; but your ‘evidence’ is nothing that I would cite, for or against anything — and certainly not for interpreting the global policy-outcomes. I think that you are focusing on balls that aren’t even in this game. You’re focusing on different games, and different balls.
Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture
Stockholm+50: Accelerate action towards a healthy and prosperous planet for all
The United Nations General Assembly agreed on the way forward for plans to host an international meeting at the highest possible level in Stockholm next June, during the week of World Environment Day. The event will commemorate the 50 years since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and serve as a contribution to accelerate action towards a more sustainable society.
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was made in 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden, resulting in what is often seen as the the first step toward the development of international environmental law, recognizing the importance of a healthy environment for people, and creating the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Five decades after the 1972 Stockholm Conference, the Government of Sweden, with support from the Government of Kenya, will host Stockholm+50, an international meeting in 2022 to commemorate the 50 years since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and its outcome documents, as a contribution to the environmental dimension of sustainable development to accelerate the implementation of commitments in the context of the decade of action and delivery for sustainable development, including a sustainable recovery from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
The international meeting, “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity”, will take place in Stockholm on 2 and 3 June 2022, following a UN General Assembly resolution. In three leadership dialogues, the meeting will reflect on the urgent need for actions towards a healthy planet and prosperity of all, achieving a sustainable and inclusive recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and accelerating the implementation of the environmental dimension of Sustainable Development in the context of the Decade of Action. The meeting will also reinforce the messages and the outcomes of the event to commemorate UNEP’s 50th anniversary (UNEP@50), which will have taken place in March 2022, in Nairobi.
Per Bolund, Sweden’s Minister for the Environment and Climate, and Deputy Prime Minister, said “Our aim is clear, we want Stockholm+50 to make a concrete contribution to accelerating the transformation to a sustainable future. We call this meeting to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the 1972 conference. We are running out of time and urgent action is needed. These challenges are global, and we must meet them with a global response that drives action on the ground.”
Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, who was on 11 October appointed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres as the Secretary-General of the Stockholm+50 international meeting, said: “We need to urgently work to transform our economies and societies, but our branches will spread only as far as our roots are deep. By remembering Stockholm at 50, we also remember how the world came together to heal the ozone layer in 2013, phase out leaded fuel this year and stop endangered species from going extinct. By convening in Stockholm, we also recommit to human and planetary health, responsibility, prosperity, equality and peace – as we have seen only too clearly in COVID-19.”
COVID-19 deaths at lowest level in nearly a year
Although COVID-19 deaths continue to decline, vaccine inequity persists, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday, again calling for greater support for developing countries.
Agency chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reported that the death toll from the disease is now at its lowest level in almost a year.
“Deaths are declining in every region except Europe, where several countries are facing fresh waves of cases and deaths. And of course, deaths are highest in the countries and populations with the least access to vaccines.”
Tedros appealed for global cooperation. “Countries that continue to roll out boosters now are effectively preventing other countries from vaccinating their most at-risk populations,” he said.
Missing the mark
As of Wednesday, there were more than 238 million COVID-19 cases worldwide, and more than 4.8 million deaths.
WHO had previously pushed governments to vaccinate 10 per cent of their populations by the end of September, a target which 56 nations missed, most of them in Africa.
Tedros said even more countries are at risk of missing the 40 per cent target to be achieved by the end of the year. Three countries – Burundi, Eritrea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – have yet to start vaccinations.
“About half of the remaining countries are constrained by supply. They have a vaccination programme underway, but don’t have enough supply to accelerate enough to reach the target,” he said.
Tedros urged countries and companies that control global vaccine supply to prioritize distribution to the COVAX solidarity initiative and the African Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT).
Meanwhile, WHO and partners are working with other countries, such as those affected by fragility or conflict, to strengthen technical and logistical capacity for vaccine rollout.
“With aggressive and ambitious action, most of these countries can still reach the 40% target by the end of this year, or be on a clear pathway to reaching it.”
Crisis in Tigray
Tedros also addressed the escalating crisis in northern Ethiopia, where a nearly year-long war in the Tigray region has left up to seven million people in urgent need for food and other assistance.
The conflict has spilled over into neighbouring Afar and Amhara, further increasing needs and complicating response efforts. Aid is not reaching the area “at anywhere close to the levels needed”, he said, and communications, electricity, other basis services remain cut off.
WHO and partners are calling for unfettered access to the affected regions, as the lives of millions of people are at stake, Tedros told journalists.
“People with chronic illnesses are dying due to lack of both food and medicine. Nearly 200,000 children have gone without critical vaccinations,” he said
“When people do not have enough food, they are more susceptible to deadly diseases, as well as the threat of starvation, and that’s what we’re now seeing in Tigray.”
Global health community prescribes climate action for COVID recovery
Ambitious national climate commitments are crucial for States to sustain a healthy, green recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new UN health agency report launched on Monday in the lead-up to the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland.
Based on a growing body of research confirming numerous and inseparable links between climate and health, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health spells out that transformational action in every sector, from energy, transport and nature to food systems and finance is needed to protect people.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the intimate and delicate links between humans, animals and our environment”, said WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “The same unsustainable choices that are killing our planet are killing people”.
An urgent call
WHO’s report was launched at the same time as an open letter, signed by over two thirds of the global health workforce – 300 organizations representing at least 45 million doctors and health professionals worldwide – calling for national leaders and COP26 country delegations to step up climate action.
“Wherever we deliver care, in our hospitals, clinics and communities around the world, we are already responding to the health harms caused by climate change”, the letter from the health professionals reads.
“We call on the leaders of every country and their representatives at COP26 to avert the impending health catastrophe by limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and to make human health and equity central to all climate change mitigation and adaptation actions”.
Fossil fuels ‘killing us’
Both the report and open letter come as unprecedented extreme weather events and other climate impacts are taking a rising toll on everyone.
Heatwaves, storms and floods have taken thousands of lives and disrupted millions of others while also threatening healthcare systems and facilities when they are needed most, according to WHO.
Changes in weather and climate are threatening food security and driving up food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, while climate impacts are also negatively affecting mental health.
“The burning of fossil fuels is killing us. Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity”, states the WHO report. And while no one is safe from the health impacts of climate change, “they are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged”.
Climate actions far outweigh costs
Meanwhile, air pollution, primarily the result of burning fossil fuels, which also drives climate change, causes 13 deaths per minute worldwide, according to WHO.
The report states clearly that the public health benefits from implementing ambitious climate actions far outweigh the costs.
“It has never been clearer that the climate crisis is one of the most urgent health emergencies we all face”, said Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health.
“Bringing down air pollution…would reduce the total number of global deaths from air pollution by 80 per cent while dramatically reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel climate change”, she pointed out.
Dr. Neira added that a shift to more nutritious, plant-based diets “could reduce global emissions significantly, ensure more resilient food systems, and avoid up to 5.1 million diet-related deaths a year by 2050”.
Call to action
Although achieving the Paris Agreement on climate change would improve air quality, diet and physical activity – saving millions of lives a year – most climate decision-making processes currently do not account for these health co-benefits and their economic valuation.
Tedros underscored WHO’s call for all countries to “commit to decisive action at COP26 to limit global warming to 1.5°C – not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s in our own interests”, and highlighted 10 priorities in the report to safeguard “the health of people and the planet that sustains us.”
UNESCO ‘eDNA’ initiative to ‘unlock’ knowledge for biodiversity protection
To understand the richness of biodiversity across World Heritage marine sites, the UN scientific organization launched on Monday a project to protect...
America’s Two-Tiered Justice System
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived...
‘Overzealous’ security services undermining South Sudan peace
State security forces in South Sudan have been responsible for imposing new and potentially arbitrary restrictions against the country’s most prominent civil society leaders, issuing “credible” death threats that have undermined peace...
In highly uneven recovery, global investment flows rebound
After a big drop last year caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, global foreign direct investment (FDI) reached an estimated $852 billion in the...
American submarine mangled in the South China Sea
Tensions in the western Pacific have been simmering for the past many months. The western world led by the United...
Restore sexual, reproductive health rights lost during COVID, rights expert urges
Sexual and reproductive health rights, are human rights, the independent UN expert on the right to health reminded Member States...
North Macedonia’s Growth Projected Higher, but Economy Still Faces Risks
The Western Balkans region is rebounding from the COVID-19-induced recession of 2020, thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in 2021, says...
Science & Technology3 days ago
U.S. Sanctions Push Huawei to Re-Invent Itself and Look Far into the Future
Americas4 days ago
How terrible the consequences of the Cold War can be
South Asia3 days ago
A Peep into Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s Tricky Relations with Afghan Taliban
Intelligence3 days ago
A More Diverse Force: The Need for Diversity in the U.S. Intelligence Community
Finance3 days ago
Early signs of collective progress as banks work to implement the Principles for Responsible Banking
Economy3 days ago
Is Myanmar an ethical minefield for multinational corporations?
East Asia4 days ago
Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question
Defense2 days ago
Iran in the SCO: a Forced “Look East” Strategy and an Alternative World Order