22 Oct 2021

A decade of pandemic planning was ignored despite knowing millions could die in UK

Robert Stevens


One of the main lies contained in parliament’s recent inquiry on the UK government’s pandemic response is that no-one in power could have foreseen the COVID pandemic that hit Britain in early 2020. The inquiry claimed that mistakes were made because all previous planning assumed that Britain would face a flu pandemic.

The report by the House of Commons health and social care and science and technology select committees, “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date,” states in the very first paragraph of its executive summary, “The UK’s pandemic planning was too narrowly and inflexibly based on a flu model which failed to learn the lessons from SARS, MERS and Ebola.”

The report cites the testimony of former Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Dame Sally Davies. In paragraph 19 of the chapter “Pandemic preparedness”, Davies states, “We all, in the UK, US and Europe, as experts and in policy, had a bias to flu, and planning for flu and diseases that had already occurred. As I look back, going back to [flu preparedness exercise] Winter Willow [held in 2007], which was well before my time, and the national risk assessment, we underestimated the impact of novel and particularly zoonotic diseases.”

In paragraph 27, Davies states, “Quite simply, we were in groupthink. Our infectious disease experts really did not believe that SARS, or another SARS, would get from Asia to us. It is a form of British exceptionalism.”

Given that the British government had conducted, going backed several decades, numerous exercises to simulate a pandemic, and that many of these were in the public domain, the document cannot just ignore them.

Exercise Cygnus is referred to in the report. It states, “The prospective national response to an influenza pandemic was tested in an exercise which took place from 18–20 October 2016. Exercise Cygnus was led by Public Health England. As part of the exercise, participants considered their capacity and capability to operate at the peak of a pandemic affecting 50% of the population which could cause between 200,000 and 400,000 excess deaths in the UK.”

But alas, goes the inquiry narrative, this exercise predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths, was really a waste of time as, “It is important to note that Exercise Cygnus focused on the treatment and escalation phases of the pandemic response. It did not simulate the detection and assessment phases.”

The document cites the testimony of then Health Secretary Matt Hancock who told the inquiry in November 2020, “The problem with Project Cygnus was […] that it started from the assumption that we were going to have a pandemic flu that was already rampant and widespread. It was an exercise in what you would do in the period at which lots of people were already dying. What it did not ask were the prior questions, What type of pandemic is most likely? What are the different characteristics of different pandemics—flu or coronavirus being two obvious examples—and can we act to stop getting into the position at which Project Cygnus started off?”

These statements are aimed at covering up the fact that extensive planning for a pandemic had been drawn up and large-scale simulations carried out for well over a decade, but also that among these were Exercise Alice.

Exercise Alice was carried out in February 2016 and was specifically simulating a response to a coronavirus pandemic —an outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). The full title of the report into the exercise is “Report: Exercise Alice-Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (Mers-CoV) 15 February 2016.”

The cover page of the partially redacted 2016 report into the coronavirus pandemic planning exercise, Exercise Alice. The document is titled: "Report: Exercise Alice-Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (Mers-CoV) 15 February 2016"

Dame Sally Davies is happy to mention Exercise Winter Willow and Exercise Cygnus as they were preparations for a flu pandemic, but not Exercise Alice. And for good reason.

It was she who commissioned Exercise Alice, the existence of which was kept hidden from the pubic by the government for more for than five years, only finally being acknowledged as having taken place in June this year. Acknowledgement was forced out of the government as the result of diligent efforts of Dr. Moosa Qureshi, backed by Leigh Day solicitors. Qureshi, a hospital consultant, took action after seeing the social devastation caused by the COVID pandemic, to uncover what preparations government had carried out to prepare for such a pandemic.

Freedom of Information requests established in June that officials from Public Health England (PHE) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) were involved in Exercise Alice.

Dr. Moosa Qureshi (credit: Dr Moosa Qureshi)

The requests forced the government to reveal that there had been a total of 11 reports into pandemic planning exercises hitherto unknown by the public in the five years before COVID hit. These included four dealing with an influenza pandemic, three on Ebola, two on Lassa—an acute viral haemorrhagic illness—and three on bird flu.

Along with Exercise Alice, the existence of further reports into pandemic exercises were revealed through pressure from Dr. Qureshi’s legal campaign. These were Exercise Broad Street, Exercise Cerberus, Exercise Northern Light, Exercise Pica, and the Ebola Preparedness Surge Capacity Exercise.

Earlier this month, the government was forced to disclose the partially redacted 23-page report on Exercise Alice, after declaring in August that publication could “lead to loss of public confidence in the government’s and the NHS’ COVID-19 response… based on misinterpretation of the report.”

Their fear was it becoming known that some of the key findings of Exercise Alice revealed the criminal nature of the government’s pandemic response, which has led to the mass infection of nearly 9 million people and over 163,000 preventable deaths.

In an October 7 press release Leigh Day noted, “Exercise Alice was carried out in 2016 and identified 12 specific actions and four key themes that Public Health England should address to make the NHS ready to cope with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV): quarantine versus self-isolation, levels of PPE, community sampling planning and effective and consistent public messaging.”

It added, “The 2016 report [Exercise Alice] identified key issues which needed to be looked at more closely such as quarantine and self-isolation requirements, the level of PPE [personal protective equipment] and the setting up of a proper contact tracing system, yet when the Covid-19 pandemic broke in 2020 the Government discharged positive covid cases into care homes and did not have a contact tracing system which could be brought immediately into action.”

Speaking on the publication of the document, Dr Qureshi said, “The Department of Health argued that Exercise Cygnus was not relevant for COVID-19, because it modelled an influenza pandemic, not a coronavirus. In fact, the disclosure of these [initial] seven reports shows a range of pandemics were modelled in the five years leading up to COVID-19. Disgracefully, the Government covered up Exercise Alice – a coronavirus exercise which predicted the importance of isolating patients, contact tracing, PPE provision, trained personnel and adequate NHS beds.

“The fact that COVID-19 is a novel type of coronavirus is irrelevant—every pandemic is different, but the lessons of Exercise Alice were generally applicable to coronaviruses including COVID-19, they were agreed by general consensus, and both political leaders and NHS England executives failed to implement that consensus. They failed to maintain contact tracing capacity and isolate patients, they failed to provide adequate PPE, and they cut NHS beds. Going forward, future pandemics remain at the top of our national risk register, and we will continue our legal campaign to establish a new paradigm of transparency and accountability for pandemic preparedness.'

The government’s claim that all the planning for a pandemic prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 was essentially a waste of time as it was premised on the main threat being a flu pandemic is also exposed as a contemptible lie based on what was contained in the reports uncovered.

Leigh Day stated that the “most significant” findings in the exercises revealed in August were those relating to Exercise Broad Street and Exercise Pica.

Exercise Broad Street was “a 2018 testing of the UK’s readiness to deal with a high consequence infectious disease, revealed concerns about surge planning for airborne pathogens.”

Exercise Pica, was “a 2018 report on how primary care would deal with a severe pandemic influenza for which there was no vaccine and no immunity.”

Leigh Day noted, “It was based on the premise that there were national stockpiles of PPE in place for healthcare workers to treat half the population and anticipated an upsurge in mental health care demand. It highlighted the need for ‘co-ordinated communications’, remote working by primary care staff and the possibility of fuel and staff shortages.”

In parliament’s “Lesson’s learned to date,” all that is said is the anodyne single sentence comment, “Despite carrying out simulation exercises, we heard that the UK did not adequately learn the lessons of previous pandemics.”

Clinical staff care for a patient with coronavirus in the intensive care unit at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, May 5, 2020 [Credit: Neil Hall Pool via AP]

The fact is that none of the planning was put into operation because the government was intent on imposing its homicidal herd immunity strategy from the outset. Dominic Cummings, who is lauded in parliament’s report as an avowed enemy of “groupthink”, was a leading advocate of herd immunity. The Sunday Times reported in March 2020 that at the end of February, Cummings had outlined the government’s strategy at a private meeting, with one observer describing the policy as, “herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

Cumming revealed earlier this year that a Public Health England exercise presented to the government as the pandemic broke out worked out scenarios based on up to 800,000 people dying of COVID-19 in the UK.

Such an agenda informed much of the planning for a pandemic going back years. In a 2011 exercise findings document, a paragraph in a section headed “Business as usual” states, “During a pandemic, the Government will encourage those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives for as long and as far as that is possible, whilst taking basic precautions to protect themselves from infection and lessen the risk of spreading influenza to others… the Government does not plan to close borders, stop mass gatherings or impose controls on public transport during any pandemic.”

On twitter this week, an intervention teacher/special needs tutor commented that this statement “reads like a playbook of the government's pandemic strategy. A focus on saving life is not anywhere in the document. But this is. Notice wording—Any pandemic. They were never going to save us, we are just collateral damage.”

As to the scale of death the government was prepared to ignore, Exercise Winter Willow, dealing with an avian flu pandemic, was conducted in January and February 2007 and involved all the emergency services, local authority officials and Labour government Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and Environment Secretary David Miliband. The Sunday Times reported on January 27, 2007 of the upcoming operation, “The exercise is designed to ensure that the authorities could cope with up to 30% of the population being infected and a possible 750,000 deaths.”

Those in government were acutely aware of the terrible scale of deaths that could result from a pandemic, with the Sunday Times noting, “Government experts have expressed fears that up to 7m Britons could die in an epidemic if bird flu mutated into a form that could readily spread among humans.”

UK parents trying to protect children face fines, imprisonment and safeguarding referrals as school COVID cases soar

Margot Miller


Parents shielding their children by keeping them away from unsafe schools are being threatened with fines, imprisonment or even the threat of having their children taken into the care of social services.

Schools reopening for the autumn term has fueled a surge in cases, spreading into the community and leading to an increase in hospitalisations in children and older age groups.

On October 14, 209,000 children were absent from school for COVID related reasons, including 111,000 confirmed cases. That same day, 1.8 percent of teachers and school leaders and 1.6 percent of teaching assistants were absent due to COVID. On October 19, twitter group Long Covid Kids reported “25 kids hospitalised in the last 24 hours with preventable illness.”

This led to appeals by National Health Service leaders for the Johnson government to implement a Plan B—with the response back: “the government has no plans to bring in any contingency measures yet.”

Government mouthpiece Dr Camilla Kingdon, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), recommended ending the twice weekly lateral flow testing in schools.

Earlier in the month, Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi announced the government’s maniacal mission to raise school attendance figures, during a life-threatening pandemic that necessitates school closures. New to the post, he instructed his department to do “a deep dive into what’s happening with absenteeism.” He aims to work with Ofsted (the school inspectorate) to raise attendance figures. “Some of it is Covid-related both in terms of a student may have Covid and is therefore self-isolating… what I would describe as Covid anxiety—whether it be parental anxiety, students’ anxiety.”

Those “anxious” parents are in fact legitimately appalled at the deaths of 96 UK children from COVID and the 11,000 children suffering Long COVID for over a year. But for trying to protect their children, they face the wrath of the authorities.

Mother of three, Sharon, explained to the WSWS how she was forced to deregister her youngest daughter 14-year-old Kelsey from school.

Sharon

“I never dreamt of taking her out of school,” she said. But “her school was one of 200 schools doing trials.”

In March 2021, the government launched a pilot scheme involving 200 schools and colleges, replacing daily lateral flow testing with the need for students in close contact with a positive case to self-isolate.

“We got minimal information,” continued Sharon. “School sent out a [permission] letter to parents. As soon as I read it, I was flabbergasted. The virus is airborne, [it would mean] taking it out to families, into the communities, it will spread. I said to the head teacher, ‘You’re giving me no choice. If my child is sitting next to a child who is positive, everyone is part of the trial.’ The head just said be part of the trial or leave. So, I took my daughter out. Schools are unsafe. But it’s gone way beyond that now, they’re not isolating any contact.”

On July 17, the government lifted all mandatory restrictions and social distancing. In schools, mask wearing and quarantining after close contact with a positive case was no longer advised. This applied to Clinically Vulnerable (CV) and Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) staff and children. Self-isolation was only recommended after a positive PCR test.

As Kelsey was not provided with any alternative remote provision, Sharon “signed [her] on for online private school because she is doing GCSEs in two years, it’s costing us a fortune.”

“All children should be protected,” she continued, “Vulnerable or not. I cannot believe the corruption, it’s all about privatisation, money. My child is being protected, but it’s tragic, parents saying they could be fined [for not sending their children into school].

“At the very beginning of the pandemic, seeing people dying gasping for air in Italy, I was screaming at the TV, because governments didn’t do anything, they kept the borders open. All this sickness, Long COVID, it’s being ignored.”

Sharon said the media were censoring what leading scientists were advising. The truth about the pandemic is “not getting out there. It’s all misinformation, lobbying groups.”

The government’s murderous policies place the lives of those deemed CV or CEV in heightened danger. The WSWS spoke to Emmy Kelly, founder of twitter advocacy group Fighting 4 Vulnerable Lives.

Emmy Kelly

The group was founded in response to the government’s end to shielding and the removal of CEV/CV status when schools reopened in September. Like all parents who kept children at home for fear of them contracting COVID, parents of CV children faced the stark choice of deregistering and losing their school place, or fines and imprisonment.

“We are hearing of more and more families now being threatened or referred to social services, EWO [Educational Welfare Officers], etc., for unauthorised absence due to schools not being given the power to use the code for Exceptional Circumstances [ Section 7 of Education Act 1996] for all CEV families,” explained Emmy.

“Pre-pandemic, schools were always able to make exceptional teaching arrangements. The Department of Education guidance to schools is breaching the Equality Act, Disability Act and Human Rights of CEV CV.”

Her group worked with the Good Law Project, which challenged the legality of this guidance. The outcome was that the government issued new guidance which, according to the Good Law Project, “conceded that schools need to be sensitive to families’ needs when considering absence due to Covid. This is a big win for clinically extremely vulnerable families, but it is only the first step. Our work will now turn to making sure that schools approve reasonable requests for leave and provide full remote education for children who cannot go to school.”

The new government guidance does not apply to CV/CEV educators. “Teachers can’t work from home, no one can work from home because furlough’s ended,” said Emmy. “It’s an absolute nightmare.”

Leaving individual parents to negotiate access to Section 7 with school also “puts parents into a new battle they didn’t know existed,” explained Emmy. “It erodes relations between home and school. One family we are supporting said school is trying to help and asked for a GP’s (general practitioner) letter. When the doctor checked with Public Health England, however, he was told, ‘GPs can’t write letters [on behalf of CEV/CV children]. The child’s education is more important than health.’

“We’ve got parents, families in suicide crisis because they have been referred to social services, having a safeguarding referral made on them [for keeping a child off school or even trying to deregister]. There is the stigma, people think there’s no smoke without fire, they think child abuse. Once in that area, everything is going on behind closed doors. The parents have to [forgo a legal challenge and] do everything to build a working relationship with the authorities,” for fear their children are put into care.

Without a strategy to eradicate the virus, those who are CEV/CV remain in grave danger, as do all children, from Long COVID or even MIS-C/PIMS (Paediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome).

For their part, the education unions refuse to mobilise their hundreds of thousands of members to demand remote education, knowing they and their pupils to be in danger. The unions maintain the fiction that schools can be made safe with a few mitigation measures, so parents can work to churn out profits.

In a press release, joint National Education Union general secretary Mary Bousted said Tuesday, “We welcome the [government] announcement that vaccination centres will open for 12-15-year-olds over half term… more needs to be done on ventilation in schools and other mitigation measures to stop the virus spreading and putting staff and pupils at further risk as we head into winter.”

Modi government sells off state-owned Air India for a song to kick-start new privatisation drive

Kranti Kumara


India’s far-right Narendra Modi-led government has sold the country’s flagship state-owned airline, Air India, to the Tata Group for a pittance. Led by the suave but rapacious industrialist Ratan Tata, the Tata Group is India’s largest conglomerate with a total market capitalization of $319 billion (Indian Rs. 23.6 trillion).

Air India jet and Narendra Modi (Wikipedia)

The sale of Air India is being touted by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government as the opening salvo in an across-the-board push to privatise virtually all state-owned companies and is being celebrated by Indian big business and international capital as such.

Although the Modi government and the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government that preceded it have pressed forward with “disinvestment,” reducing the government stake in numerous Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and ensuring that they are operated on “for profit” business lines, Air India is the first central government PSU to be sold off in its entirety in 19 years.

In truth, gifted would better describe what has taken place. To gain sole ownership of one of the world’s premier airlines, Tata Group is making an upfront cash payment of just $365 million (Rs. 27 billion) and assuming $2.1 billion (Rs. 153 billion), or 25 percent, of the airline’s total $8.3 billion (Rs. 616 billion) debt. This leaves the Indian government with the responsibility for the remaining $6.3 billion (Rs. 463 billion), which will be paid off no doubt through diminished social support for, and increased taxation of, working people.

The Tata Group is pocketing not just Air India, but also its budget airline subsidiary, Air India Express, which has a fleet of 24 narrow-bodied Boeing 737-800s used to provide service to and from the Gulf. It is also acquiring the government’s 50 percent stake in Air India SATS, which provides ground handling, food catering and aircraft cleaning services.

Air India has a premier fleet of 117 wide-body jets and employs around 12,000 workers, including highly skilled mechanics and pilots. Its aircraft fleet is alone estimated to be worth anywhere from $5.4 to $6.8 billion (Rs. 400 billion to Rs. 500 billion).

The airline is to be completely handed over to the Tata Group by year end. Under the terms of the deal, Tata has pledged not to lay off any workers for one year. Thereafter, it can be expected to mount a massive cost-cutting drive, targeting workers’ jobs, wages, pensions and working conditions.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has used it financial muscle to promote privatisation around the world, was quick to hail the sale of Air India. Alfred Schipke, a former chief of the IMF India Mission and current director of the IMF’s Singapore Regional Training Institute, called it “an important milestone.”

The head of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Chandrajit Banerjee, similarly gushed his approval. The “successful privatisation of Air India marks a momentous event,” declared Banerjee, “and sends out a clear message to the markets and global investors that the present government has the political will to bite the reform bullet.”

Numerous corporate media editorials also hailed the privatisation deal. The Indian Express, to cite but one, praised the Modi government for its readiness to make Air India alluring to investors by “tweaking the modalities of the sale agreement,” adding that this “sends an unambiguous message—about its determination to push forward with a privatisation agenda.”

Indeed, the government has served notice that as part of its pandemic “economic recovery” strategy virtually all PSUs are now on the auction block and in all sectors from mining, transport and electricity-generation to banking. Under the government’s plans, only a handful of “strategic” PSUs, such as weapons manufacturers, are not to be privatised.

The Modi government’s privatisation push is aimed at intensifying its drive to make India a cheap labour production-chain hub for global capital, attracting increased foreign direct investment and providing cash infusions to the Treasury to staunch spiraling deficits.

The IMF and the World Bank, along with Washington, have long been pressing for New Delhi to dismantle India’s state sector enterprises.

The government has set a disinvestment and privatization target of $24 billion (Rs. 1.75 trillion) for the current 2021-22, fiscal year. Among the PSUs to be sold off outright are the IDBI Bank, Bharat Petroleum Corp. and Shipping Corp. of India.

At the same time, the government has initiated the partial privatization of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC,) which is estimated to have Rs. 36 trillion ($864 billion) in assets and dominates 60 percent of India’s life insurance market. According to the Reuters news agency, one of the top officials spearheading the privatisation drive, Tuhin Kanta Pandey, said that “the government hoped to complete the valuation exercise of LIC by November-December.” The Modi government aims to raise Rs. 900 billion ($12 billion) by selling 5 to 10 percent of the government’s current 100 percent ownership.

The Modi government announced a whole slew of pro-investor economic “reforms” during the budget session of parliament in February. Modi, who is known for his use of crude and trite phrases, stated at the outset that the Indian government has “no business to be in business.” He then stated that the mantra of the government’s remaining three-year term in office is “Monetise and Modernise.”

Monetisation refers to handing over publicly owned infrastructure such as railways, ports, roads and electricity assets for “management,” i.e., sporadic maintenance, by private companies. These companies would then charge fees to the public, the supposed owners of these assets to use their own facilities, with a small portion of this “income” to be handed over to the Indian government.

Modernization is a codeword for selling off India’s state sector to domestic and international companies so that they can be run “efficiently,” i.e., transforming workplaces into sweatshops by imposing long working hours and low pay and further expanding the use of contract workers who can be hired and fired at will.

The Air India sale to the Tata Group was consummated in short order, with the government offering especially lucrative terms to the buyer, so as to demonstrate to Indian and international capital its determination to kick-start its privatization drive. The BJP government was determined not to repeat what happened in 2018 when its attempt to sell off a 76 percent stake in Air India elicited not a single bid.

Air India was one of the top-class international airlines prior to 2006. At that time the Congress Party-led UPA government forced Air India and also the state-owned domestic Indian Airlines to order a huge fleet of 111 airplanes from US Boeing corporation—68 for Air India and 43 for Indian Airlines. The two airlines, which were subsequently merged by the government, were forced to finance their gargantuan combined $15 billion (Rs. 700 billion) purchase by taking on huge amounts of debt. The UPA government was adamant that the deal go ahead, jettisoning Air India’s plans to buy planes from European-based Airbus, so as to help cement the Indo-US “global strategic partnership” it had struck with Washington the year before. Then US President George W. Bush personally lobbied Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to proceed with the Boeing order.

Although final details of the Air Indian sale are still to be worked out, the Indian government has sent notices to Air India workers to vacate their staff quarters within six months of the sale being formally consummated.

The unions that represent the Air India workers have bleated their opposition but have no intention of making the Air India workers’ struggle the spearhead of a working-class offensive against the BJP’s privatisation drive and, more generally, its rapacious big business agenda.

Both the Stalinist Communist Party of India, Marxist (CPM) and the smaller Communist Party of India (CPI) have systematically suppressed the class struggle, diverting workers into futile protest campaigns aimed at appealing to Modi to change course, while trying to politically tie them to the Congress and other right-wing opposition parties.

The CPM’s trade union arm, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions CITU which claims to represent over 5 million workers, has denounced the Air India sale as “anti-national” borrowing a phrase the Modi government has used to criminalize dissent by students, journalists and intellectuals. It accuses the Modi government of handing over “one of the prides of India” to a “private monopoly house ... virtually free of cost,” while toothlessly calling upon its affiliated trade unions to “resist” such “anti-national activities.”

“Fifth wave” of COVID-19 underway in France

Samuel Tissot


Following a continuous fall in cases since mid-August, the last seven-day period has seen an increase of 11.5 percent in new COVID-19 cases in France. After the seven-day average for cases reached a low of 4,172 on October 9 it has since risen to 4,647. On Tuesday, the total number of people hospitalized for COVID-19 rose for the first time in two months by 15 to 6,483. As of October 17, France’s estimated R0 reproduction rate was 1.05.

A paramedic walks out of a tent that was set up in front of the emergency ward of the Cremona hospital, northern Italy [Credit: Claudio Furlan/Lapresse via AP, file]

In the last week, over 200 people have died from the virus, taking the total number of deaths from COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic to over 118,000. Across Europe the death toll is now over 1.27 million, according to worldometers.info.

In early September, the Pasteur Institute warned that winter conditions will lead to a renewed surge of the virus in France and a peak of hospitalizations exceeding those witnessed in 2020. This calculation was based on assuming that vaccine efficacy does not diminish over time and does not consider the impact of new variants.

Even before the onset in France of cold weather, which typically favors the spread of respiratory viruses, COVID-19’s resurgence is well underway. Without immediate measures to curb the spread of the virus, within a few weeks daily cases will once again be in the tens of thousands.

The rise in cases, despite increasing levels of vaccination in the population, expose the government’s lie that vaccines alone can contain and end the pandemic. As of October 17, 67.4 percent of the population are fully protected, and 75.5 percent have received one dose. While vaccination is a necessary measure to protect the population from severe infection and reduce transmission, it is not sufficient by itself to stop the virus.

It is highly likely conditions in France will resemble those in the UK within a matter of weeks. Both countries have fully vaccinated around 67 percent of their populations. In the UK, over the last week, average daily cases were 44,251 and nearly 1,000 people died.

The recent decision of the Macron government to remove masks in schools will only further drive the acceleration in infections. Last week, 1180 school classes were closed due to positive COVID cases.

The government’s decision to end free testing on October 15 is set to artificially lower the true level of infection in France in coming weeks. Encouraging people to avoid testing, even when they are symptomatic, will lead to people infected with the virus continuing to go to work, commute and socialize, endangering all those they contact.

The move to end accessible COVID-19 testing, the primary method of tracking of the virus in the population, exposes the ruling class’ determination to jettison all measures to combat the virus.

The decision to reopen schools amid widespread transmission has put millions of children at risk of catching a damaging, and in some cases deadly, virus. It also means that, particularly in primary schools where children are totally unvaccinated, the virus has been able to circulate rapidly before being taken home to parents and families.

Even though the rise in cases after weeks of steady decline proves the pandemic is far from over, it has scarcely been mentioned in the bourgeois press. Where the rise in the rate of infections is acknowledged, the only response has been to dismiss concerns over the increase.

France Info acknowledged the rise in cases but cited France’s high vaccine coverage and the slight fall in deaths over the past week to conclude, “No fifth epidemic wave, like last autumn, for the moment.” 20Minutes asked “is it the beginning of the fifth wave?” before invoking similar arguments to conclude, “it is of course too earlier to say.”

Critically, these publications ignore the delay between rising infections and deaths that has been observed at every other step of the pandemic in France, as well as in other highly-vaccinated countries like Singapore, which has seen a massive spike in infection and hospitalization despite having 82.4 percent of its population fully vaccinated.

Speaking to Le Monde last week, Jean-François Delfraissy, the head of the government’s scientific council, warned: “The other possibility is the emergence of a variant that is even more transmissible or that escapes the immunity conferred by the vaccine.” He added that despite the observed fall in cases observed through September and early October, “In the long term, of course, the crisis is not over.”

The vaccine’s ability to reduce the chance of death and transmission is under constant threat from the development of new variants. While booster shots are essential for added protection, and should be rolled out as widely as possible, they risk being ineffective with the development of new variants. Huge numbers of the population also remain unvaccinated, including all children under 12, 735,000 people aged between 65 and 74, and 638,000 people over 75.

These facts underline the necessity of a scientific policy to eliminate the virus and end the pandemic once and for all.

If capitalist governments across the continent had their way, the virus would have been allowed to circulate freely throughout the pandemic. In March 2020, it was only a wildcat strike movement that began with workers in Italy and spread like wildfire across Europe and in the United States that led to the first, and so far, only, scientific measures to combat the virus.

With the complicity of the corporatist unions, restrictions were ended prematurely in France and the progress that had been made toward eliminating the virus was lost. Since then, various limited lockdowns in France have only been implemented by the government when threatened with social unrest and a renewed movement of the working class.

China’s Evergrande crisis at a turning point

Nick Beams


The financial crisis of the highly indebted Chinese property developer Evergrande enters a new stage tomorrow when a 30-day grace period to settle a missed payment on a dollar-denominated bond on September 23 ends.

China Evergrande Centre [Wikimedia Commons]

If Evergrande, which has a total of $300 billion worth of liabilities, fails to pay the debt or come to some arrangement with bond holders it could be formally declared to be in default.

Evergrande’s attempt to raise cash to meet its debts suffered a blow on Wednesday when it was announced that a deal to sell a majority portion of a property services unit to another developer for 20 billion Hong Kong dollars ($US2.6 billion) had been terminated the previous week.

Since Evergrande missed its bond payment last month, two other property companies have followed suit. On Monday the Hong Kong-listed company Sinic announced it had failed to make payments on $246 million of dollar-denominated bonds following a default by the developer Fantasia Holdings on $205 million of bonds earlier this month.

In line with the policy of the government to rein in leverage in the real estate sector, the People’s Bank of China has pointedly refused to offer a bailout for Evergrande saying fallout effects from its crisis are “controllable.”

But the bigger issue is whether the government and financial authorities will be able to stave off the effects of the developing slump in real estate and property development on the broader economy. It has been estimated that property development and the industries that supply it account for upwards of 25 percent of the Chinese economy. There are a number of indications of a significant downturn in housing and property development.

It has been reported that home prices in China fell in September for the first time in six years. The latest GDP numbers showed a slowdown in the third quarter—growth was only up by 0.2 percent from the previous quarter—with property and construction industries contracting for the first time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bloomberg reported that falling home prices could start a vicious cycle, worsening the cash shortage of builders and forcing them to offer bigger discounts. It cited one financial analyst who said the sector had entered a downward cycle and the priority “is to prevent a state of panic.”

Residential sales fell by 17 percent in September, normally a peak month for purchases and the rate of failed land auctions climbed to the highest level since 2018.

According to data compiled by China Real Estate Information, which tracks auctions across 128 Chinese cities, about 27 percent of land offered by local governments went unsold in September because there were no bidders. Proceeds from land sales dropped by 18 percent in August from a year earlier.

Last month, in a sign of tightening credit conditions and fears about the direction of the market, loans taken out by property developers from banks fell by 8.4 percent last month, the biggest fall since 2016.

Larry Hu, the head of China Economics at Macquarie Securities, told Bloomberg: “Developers are hoarding cash to avoid becoming the next Evergrande. The contagion risk is real.”

If this trend continues it will have far reaching effects. Local governments derive around $1 trillion of revenue, some 40 percent of their total, from land sales which is used to finance infrastructure projects.

The roots of the present crisis lie not in the Chinese economy per se but in the global financial system. The 2008 financial meltdown, triggered by the collapse of the Lehman Brothers investment bank, hit the Chinese economy very hard with the loss of 23 million jobs virtually overnight.

The Chinese regime concluded that the economic growth model, based on the supply of cheap consumer goods to Western markets, had run its course and a new economic strategy had to be developed.

In order to maintain economic growth and social stability the regime embarked on a massive stimulus package based on housing and infrastructure financed by the provision of very cheap credit. Land prices soared and developers used the land as collateral to finance construction. Local governments raked in increased revenue from land sales, which they used to finance infrastructure development, together with increased borrowings.

Rising property prices enabled the process to continue. In 1998, when the Chinese government loosened tight restrictions on the sale of land, only one third of the population lived in towns and cities. That proportion has now risen to two-thirds, with the addition of 480 million to the urban population.

The extent of the property and infrastructure boom is indicated by the estimate that in the three years 2011–2013 more concrete was used in China than in the US for the whole of the 20th century.

The rise of Evergrande was bound up with this development. Its founder Hui Ka Yan started his economic activity in Shenzhen as an exporter-importer but then moved into property development when he founded Evergrande in 1997. By 2016 Evergrande was the largest property developer by sales and Shenzhen, like many other small towns across China, had been transformed into a major city.

In a speech in 2018, Hui, now a prominent member of Chinese Communist Party, (CCP) delivered a speech in which he declared: “Everything for me and Evergrande is given by the Party, the state, and society.”

As a recent Bloomberg article noted: “Even making allowances for flattery, Hui wasn’t wrong: The forces that allowed Evergrande to grow so rapidly emanated, in large part, from Beijing.”

But now the winds from Beijing have started to blow in another direction. The CCP regime has concluded that the debt-fueled growth model, initiated in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, is unsustainable.

For the past several years it has tried to cut back on the debt growth, which now stands as 290 percent of GDP and has doubled since 2008.

After previous efforts had failed, it instituted tightened restrictions on credit, known as the three red lines in August 2020, which restricted debt accumulation by property developers. Evergrande, for example, failed to meet all three of the criteria.

The regime concluded that the rise of debt could lead to a financial crisis, with massive social consequences and the rise and of debt-fuelled wealth on the heights of society was producing a dangerous social polarisation.

In a speech delivered in August, the full text of which was published in a CCP theoretical journal Qishui earlier this month, President Xi Jinping, pointed to the rise of income inequality as a prominent issue around the world, declaring that “our country must resolutely guard against polarisation, drive common prosperity, and maintain social harmony and stability.”

And in indication of what is at stake, he said the drive for “common prosperity” was needed to “continuously consolidate the Party’s foundation for holding power over the long term.”

The speech had little specific to say on property development as such but Xi repeated earlier remarks that it was necessary to improve housing supply and “insist on the position that housing is for living in and not for [financial] speculation” and that “we must actively and steadily push forward property tax legislation and reform.”

But it appears that the proposed tax changes, which it is claimed will make it more expensive to speculate on property and help bring down prices, have run into significant opposition from within the upper ranks of the CCP.

According to an article published in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, citing “people with knowledge of government deliberations,” Xi is facing resistance for the new measures.

It said that “in internal debates, the feedback from his property-tax plan both from the party elites and rank-and-file members, has been overwhelmingly negative.”

Arguments against the tax plan have “flooded in” since the ministries of finance, housing and taxation started to seek feedback to the proposal in the spring. “Many officials contend that such a levy could crush housing prices, cause consumer spending to plunge and severely harm the overall economy.”

Apart from the expressed concern about the impact on the economy, there are immediate material interests at stake.

The article reported that some senior retired party members have also petitioned against the new tax saying they could not afford it.

According to one of those people familiar with the deliberations, cited by the Journal: “So many people, including party members own more than one property. The tax proposal is becoming a potential social-stability issue.”

The opposition from within the CCP appears to be having an effect as an initial proposal to trial the tax in 30 cities has been scaled back to 10.

There is an old political adage that there is no more dangerous situation for a bad regime than when it seeks to reform itself.

The economic re-orientation of the Xi regime is provoking divisions within the ruling apparatus and could well also lead to the eruption of a movement by the Chinese working class from below.

Strike wave in US continues to grow, sparking fear and repression from ruling class

Marcus Day


Corporate executives in boardrooms across the US are responding to a growing strike wave—set to become the largest in decades—with increasing fear and hostility. The longstanding policy of relying on the trade union bureaucracy to suppress the class struggle is failing to contain the outbreak of strikes and increasingly the corporate and political establishment is resorting to strikebreaking, court injunctions and threats of state repression.

Striking Kellogg's worker in Battle Creek, Michigan (WSWS Media)

Anger among broad sections of workers has begun to boil over, after being suppressed for four decades by the AFL-CIO. Placated as “heroes” and “essential” by companies’ public relations departments, workers in health care, manufacturing, transportation, logistics and warehousing, and other industries have suffered the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic—working ever-longer hours at low wages and with inadequate protections against the virus. Meanwhile, workers have watched as corporate profits and the fortunes of the super-rich have skyrocketed since 2020, with the latest report by Forbes showing the wealth of US billionaires swelled 70 percent, a whopping $2.1 trillion.

With rents and prices in consumer goods surging, and companies struggling with an ongoing labor shortage, growing numbers of workers are walking out or pressing to strike to secure substantial increases in wages and benefits, both in the United States and internationally.

A strike tracker maintained by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) has already recorded 180 strikes for the year, including 39 in October alone, involving approximately 24,000 workers.

Reflecting the growing concerns in ruling circles over the possibility of strike “contagion,” Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research and senior lecturer at the ILR, told Yahoo Finance: “What will happen is you’ll see more workers going on strike. Each time there’s a ripple effect with each one of those, if the John Deere strike isn’t settled, you’re going to see another big group go out. If companies don’t move, you’re going to see this spread from one group to another. Strikes are contagious.”

Wall Street investors and financial analysts are increasingly voicing similar worries. According to Canada’s Financial Post, a strategist for RBC (the Royal Bank of Canada) wrote in a note recently that strikes were the top supply-chain concern among 23 S&P 500 companies that reported earnings in the first two weeks of October, double the number that mentioned port bottlenecks and logistics problems. “Labor inflation is definitely a watch item for us,” said JPMorgan Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Barnum on a recent call.

Roughly 2,000 workers employed at health care giant Kaiser Permanente’s Hawaii locations were the latest to authorize a strike at the company by overwhelming margins, voting to approve a walkout by 93 percent this week. They join 35,000 Kaiser workers in California, Oregon and Washington who had earlier voted for strike action, and 700 Kaiser hospital engineers in the Bay Area who have already been on the strike for over a month. Thousands of other Kaiser workers, out of approximately 52,000 total whose contract expired September 30, are also taking strike authorization votes in the coming weeks.

In a move which is being replicated in contract negotiations at companies throughout the US, Kaiser has demanded that raises be limited to just 1 percent and that a new tier of lower wages for new hires be established, despite taking in over $2 billion in operating income in 2020. However, the trade unions have refused to set a strike date, keeping workers on the job for weeks without a contract.

Balloting for strike authorizations is also continuing in other industries. Teachers in school districts from Pennsylvania and Ohio to California have approved strikes in the past week. Several hundred flight attendants for Piedmont Airlines, a regional carrier for American Airlines, as well as SEPTA transit workers in Philadelphia are voting this week over whether to walk out.

Piedmont flight attendants in Philadelphia (AFA-CWA Twitter)

So far, the US ruling class has been largely relying upon its loyal assistants in the trade union bureaucracies—who for decades have enforced corporate attacks on wages and working conditions—in the hopes that they can contain and suppress the growing strike movement. The Biden administration has made the promotion of the trade unions central to its policies, viewing the unions as firewalls and enforcers of “labor peace.”

The biggest walkout threatened recently, that of 60,000 TV and film production workers in California, was called off at the last minute by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union over the weekend. The initial details released by IATSE of its so-called “Hollywood ending” agreement, however, showed it would continue to sanction brutally long hours, provoking outpourings of anger from workers and denunciations of the deal as a sellout.

The old principle of “no contract, no work” has been increasingly transformed into “no contract, no strike” by the pro-corporate trade unions, as they work desperately to hold back workers as long as possible. At auto parts maker Dana Inc., the United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers unions have kept 3,500 workers on the job under day-to-day contract extensions for months, even after workers voted down a union-backed agreement by 90 percent. The UAW and USW are presently engaged in an effort to ram through largely identical deals at Dana, which again fail to meet workers’ demands for serious wage increases and an end to appalling sweatshop work schedules.

The UAW is hoping to secure a contract at Dana as quickly as possible, fearful over the growing support for the strike by 10,000 workers at John Deere, the multinational agricultural and construction equipment maker. Dana workers, who supply Deere with critical parts, have been demanding with increasing insistence to strike themselves.

While the corporations and their political representatives are working closely with the trade union executives to restrain workers wherever they feel they can, they are simultaneously worried over workers’ growing defiance of and contempt for the unions’ orders. A business columnist for the Los Angeles Times recently noted, “After decades of abject somnolence, American labor seems to be stirring, but the Deere strike may be the best example just now of how fed up unionized workers have become with their leadership. The UAW allowed the Big Three automakers to impose two-tiered wage rates in 2007, a supine concession that quickly spread to other UAW contracts, including Deere.

Thus, when the unions prove unable to hold workers back from striking, as at Deere, the companies are quickly resorting to all the old methods of class war and state repression.

On Wednesday, Deere secured a temporary court injunction against striking workers in Davenport, Iowa, who had carried out mass pickets in recent days, and has requested another injunction against workers at its plant near Des Moines, the state capital. Scott County District Court Chief Judge Marlita Greve’s ruling unabashedly solidarized itself with Deere, complaining that because of workers’ picketing, the company “has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable injury.”

The injunction attempts to facilitate Deere’s use of strikebreakers by severely constraining workers’ ability to picket, limiting them to just four individuals at each gate, while also provocatively barring their use of firewood barrels and chairs.

Predictably, the UAW has responded by ordering workers to comply with the injunction without offering a hint of protest, let alone seeking to mobilize opposition to it, indicating thereby its de facto support.

The UAW’s role in seeking to leave workers defenseless to corporate strikebreaking and attacks has been mirrored to a greater or lesser degree in other ongoing struggles. At food manufacturer Kellogg’s, where 1,400 workers have been striking across several states, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) has defended the Building and Construction Trades Council unions’ plans to force their members to cross picket lines in Omaha, Nebraska.

At St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Nurses Union has isolated the seven-month strike by 700 nurses, doing nothing to seriously oppose Tenet Healthcare’s use of permanent replacements, nor the company’s unilateral imposition of its contract demands. Strikebreakers have also been brought in to crush struggles by Heaven Hill distillery workers in Tennessee and Warrior Met Coal miners in Alabama. In the latter case, the United Mine Workers union has left miners open to the violence of the company’s scabs and armed thugs, with workers hit by strikebreakers’ cars and reportedly shot at.

Such resorts to outright repression and all the most vicious corporate tactics of the early 20th century present serious dangers to workers. However, it is not an indication of the powerful position of the capitalist ruling class, but rather of its weakness and desperation, as it lashes out against a growing rebellion by workers which threatens to erupt on a scale not seen in generations.

California public schools face massive budget cuts due to COVID-19 pandemic

David Benson


School districts across California are confronting the prospect of mass layoffs due to budget shortfalls accrued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding formulas are based on average daily attendance. While Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has repeatedly bragged that public schools in the state have remained open, enrollment has fallen precipitously and chronic absenteeism in California schools has skyrocketed due to the pandemic, pushing districts to the point of collapse.

California K-12 enrollment in 2020-21 (Source: California Department of Education)

Statewide enrollment in K-12 education declined by 160,000 in the 2020-21 school year, or nearly three percent. This translates to millions of dollars cut to already strained school districts and the possibility of mass layoffs for chronically understaffed schools.

In September, Newsom staged a visit to Melrose Leadership Academy in Oakland to brag about his COVID-19 strategy. He stated, “We implemented the most robust school reopening and safety strategy in the entire country, and now California’s students are back in the classroom and schools are remaining open at nation-leading rates.”

Despite Newsom’s assurances, Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) reported 23 cases of students contracting COVID-19, four staff cases, and four classes fully quarantining in the last week alone. Chronic absenteeism has skyrocketed compared to pre-pandemic figures, with OUSD reporting a rate of 37 percent chronically absent among K-5 students, compared to 14 percent before the pandemic.

Three years ago, OUSD initiated the “Citywide Plan” which closed several schools and cut tens of millions of dollars from the budget. Now, with declining attendance, the budget shortfall will be greater, with a deficit of $58 million projected for the 2022-23 school year.

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) also faces budget shortfalls as a result of a 6.6 percent decline in enrollment. A projected $100 million shortfall may result in the loss of 1,000 jobs. SFUSD also faces chronic absenteeism, with African American, Pacific Islander, and homeless students particularly hard hit. Students who do attend school risk their health; since August 16, when schools reopened in San Francisco, 393 students and staff have become infected with COVID-19.

The two largest California school districts are also in crisis. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has lost 27,000 students since last year and presently has 893 active COVID-19 cases. Enrollment at San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) is down by 7,500 students in the last four years.

EdSource has reported school districts with chronic absence rates tripling from two years ago. Some students miss school due to quarantines; others are afraid of contracting the disease, and many students and parents are unwilling to expose themselves to the harassment of fascistic anti-maskers. One of the worst-hit schools is Thermalito Union Elementary in the north central Butte County. This county has a poverty rate of 21 percent, with a median household income of $43,444, far below the state household income of $80,440 as well as the national income of $65,712.

Besides poverty, Butte County residents suffered from the devastating 2018 Camp Fire. This fire was caused by the negligence of Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E), for which the company agreed to pay merely $13.5 billion for the destruction of the entire town of Paradise and the deaths of 84 people. Two years after the settlement, lawyers have skimmed millions of dollars and the victims have received only a fraction of what they are owed. Only 10 percent of the burned homes have been rebuilt, and thousands of residents are living in shacks, motor homes or tents.

Butte County has also been hard hit by COVID-19, with 19,561 confirmed cases and 252 deaths from the virus. Despite claims by Democrats, Republicans and their media stooges that the pandemic has subsided, 53 cases were reported last week alone. At California State University Chico, also in Butte County, 312 students and employees have contacted COVID-19 since the school reopened in August. In Chico Unified School District, 56 students and 11 staff members have been confirmed as infected with COVID-19 in the last two weeks.

California has had 4,571,467 individuals officially infected with COVID-19, with 672,005 cases among the 0-17 age group, while the total number of deaths in the state has reached 70,150. In the past two weeks alone, there were 76,888 cases and 1,245 deaths among Californians.

In the last two weeks, 70 students were either confirmed or potentially positive for the virus and 158 students were quarantined in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). In the foothill town of Jackson, the superintendent for the Amador County Unified School District, Torie Gibson, has been receiving death threats because of the mask mandate implemented by the district. Despite the mandate, 379 students and 11 staff members have tested positive for the virus and 376 students and 9 staff members are presently in quarantine.

Rocklin, in Placer County, had an infection rate of over 200 cases per 100,000 over the last two weeks. Approximately one out of 1,000 residents have died from COVID-19 and one out of every six people infected has been a child. School board meetings in Rocklin Unified School District have repeatedly been disrupted by fascists, including Proud Boys, Moms 4 Liberty, and White Rose members, who have attended and raised threats of violence against school board members and teachers for enforcing mask mandates.

Newsom has ended mask mandates for vaccinated individuals in businesses, threatening the further spread of COVID-19. Two months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on the ability of vaccinated individuals to carry a viral load and infect others. As is already widely known, breakthrough infections among those vaccinated have already occurred.

Newsom also recently announced that students will be required to be vaccinated, but this should not be taken at face value. First, there is an immense loophole in that parents can refuse to vaccinate their children based on personal beliefs or medical waivers. The state legislature has not defined “personal beliefs,” so localities are free to interpret that as religious, political, or unscientific fears. Furthermore, the start date for the mandate could be as late as January 2023.

The statistics have made it perfectly clear that until COVID-19 cases are brought to zero, schools cannot be open without mass infections among children, which in turn spread to their families and communities. The only way that the health and safety of the public can be achieved is through a fight to eliminate COVID-19 in ever-broader geographic areas until all human-to-human transmission is brought to an end.