Latest COVID-19 surge deepens across Europe and globally, fueled by Omicron BA.4 and BA.5

Benjamin Mateus

At a press conference Wednesday, amid the latest global surge of COVID-19 infections, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cautioned that “our ability to track the virus is under threat as reporting and genomic sequences are declining, meaning it is harder to track Omicron and analyze future emerging threats.” This warning was issued as the highly infectious and immune-resistant Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants have become dominant globally and account for 55 percent of all international samples.

According to Our World in Data, the global seven-day rolling average of daily new cases is approaching 750,000, almost 60 percent above the lows seen in the first week of June. Cases are rising in four of six WHO regions of the globe—Europe, the Americas (including 24.6 percent in South America), Southeast Asia and Eastern Mediterranean, with Europe seeing the fastest growth in this period.

In the week ending June 20, 4.5 million new cases were officially registered, a 23 percent rise from the previous week. COVID-19 deaths for the same week rose by over 9,000, a more than 8 percent increase and the first substantial jump since the peaks in early February.

The new surge in cases must be viewed in the context of the systemic and near-universal dismantling of all COVID-19 surveillance and data reporting, meaning that these figures represent significant undercounts. In every country where COVID-19 infections are surging, test positivity rates are also soaring. In mid-June, more than 41 percent of all COVID-19 tests in Germany were positive, while in France that figure is over 22 percent. Similar skyrocketing test positivity rates can be seen across Europe.

[Photo by Our World in Data / CC BY 4.0]

Another more accurate measurement of the real spread of the virus, wastewater sampling, shows record levels of viral transmission in Madrid, Spain. This takes place as official cases are less than a quarter of the record set in mid-January 2022.

Loading Tweet ...

Tweet not loading? See it directly on Twitter

The surge is expected to deepen in the coming weeks and persist throughout the summer, as tourist season is in full swing. Speaking with Agence France-Presse (AFP), WHO Europe Regional Director Dr. Hans Kluge stated this week, “As countries across the European region have lifted the social measures that were previously in place, the virus will transmit at high levels over the summer. This virus won’t go away just because countries stop looking for it. It’s still spreading, it’s still changing, and it’s still taking lives.”

These comments are an about-face for Kluge, who welcomed the first Omicron wave in January as a supposed harbinger of permanent immunity for the population. On January 24, 2022, he said, “It’s plausible that the region is moving towards a kind of pandemic endgame. We anticipate that there will be a period of quiet before COVID-19 may come back towards the end of the year but not necessarily the pandemic coming back.”

The 53 countries representing the WHO European region are now averaging nearly 500,000 official daily new cases, accounting for a significant majority of current global infections, up from 150,000 daily infections in late May. Austria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal have recently seen the highest case rates. Weekly deaths from COVID-19 across Europe now stand at roughly 2,500, comparable to figures registered in the summer of 2020 before vaccines were available.

The current developments in Greece starkly exemplify what is unfolding across Europe and will soon transpire in every other country that has allowed the virus to spread uncontrolled. Last Monday, the National Organization for Public Health (EODY) reported nearly 7,700 COVID-19 cases, double the daily cases seen at the beginning of June. The next day, EODY said cases had exploded with more than 20,000 infections, with the seven-day rolling average reaching over 13,000. Of these, approximately 15 percent represent reinfections.

The EODY also noted that there were 16 more COVID-related deaths, with 95 patients in intensive care units. These are mostly the elderly over 70, and many have multiple underlying medical conditions predisposing them to severe manifestations. The trend in deaths across Greece is climbing once again, even though more than 71 percent of the population is fully vaccinated. The elderly and debilitated will suffer most from these surges and reinfections, as their waning immunity to the virus places them at greater risk than other demographics.

Similarly, the United Kingdom is experiencing another wave of infections and hospitalizations. Official new cases are up 34 percent from the prior week. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), one in 30 people is now infected with COVID-19. Their data estimates that around 1.8 million people were infected despite 98 percent of the population having antibodies either from previous vaccination or infection. Scotland has been hit the hardest in the current surge.

The seven-day average of people hospitalized for COVID in the UK has reached close to 7,400, a 45 percent increase over the lows reached in early June. The current trend in admissions will soon approach the highs seen during the Delta wave.

Virologist Dr. Stephen Griffin, an associate medical professor at Leeds University, told the Financial Times, “Vaccines reduce severe disease, and waves such as this do not cause the same spikes in hospitalizations as we saw, for example, with the Alpha variants. However, the constant bombardment of waves we are seeing does cause a clinical impact that is not to be underestimated.”

Indeed, the clinical impact of Long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), is mounting with each new wave of infections. This will have untold consequences on the population’s overall health as the complex interaction between the virus and the various organ systems, including the brain and neurological systems, will accumulate.

The repeated mantra that the coronavirus only causes mild disease is increasingly belied by objective reality, in which mass infections and long-term debilitation have profoundly destabilized the global economy and led to mounting labor shortages internationally. The most visible manifestation of this at present is the huge number of flight cancellations due to staffing shortages at airports and airlines. The aviation consultancy Cirium reported that June, the start of summer season in Europe, saw 7,870 flights canceled for departures from the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain alone.

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Wednesday that BA.4 (15.7 percent) and BA.5 (36.6 percent) now dominate all other variants across the country. This will likely cause another surge of infections in the coming weeks, as the seven-day average of daily new cases has plateaued at just over 100,000. The positivity rate in the US has reached nearly 14 percent, while since mid-April hospitalizations have more than doubled to 33,600 admissions on average. Over the past two weeks, COVID-19-related deaths have risen by nearly 50 percent to 380 per day, while estimates of daily excess deaths attributable to the pandemic now stand at 660 per day in the US.

On Tuesday, an expert committee advised the FDA that COVID-19 booster shots should be updated to reflect the circulating subvariants. As the New York Times carefully said, “The panel’s vote paves the way for the FDA to push manufacturers to make reformulated boosters in time for the Biden administration to offer them later this year, before an expected winter surge,” which coincides with the mid-term elections.

Moderna executives told the FDA panel that the vaccine manufacturer would not be able to produce Omicron-specific vaccines until late October or early November, while Pfizer pledges to have such vaccines ready by early October. FDA regulators shared their concerns that by the time such a vaccine specifically tailored to BA.4 and BA.5 is developed, it would already be outdated. This underscores the fact that chasing the virus through a vaccine-only strategy is a futile game.

Infectious disease specialist Dr. Mark Sawyer from the UC San Diego School of Medicine told the Times, “We’re all troubled by the steady erosion of immune protection. We’re going to be behind the eight ball if we wait longer.” He added that “right now the critical thing is the manufacturers need to know what to put into their vaccine. Over the coming months, I think we’ll get a sense, and there’ll be plenty of time for debate over who is most appropriate for boosters.”

However, potential BA.4/BA.5-specific boosters and next generation therapies require funding for the Biden administration to bid with suppliers. White House COVID-19 response coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said on Wednesday, “There are new generations of treatments that are coming online, companies that are making them with some very promising data. [However,] the US government and no one in the US is negotiating with these companies for these treatments because we don’t have the resources.” Yet, there are ample resources to fund the US-NATO proxy in Ukraine against nuclear-armed Russia, and as President Joe Biden reiterated Thursday, to do so for “as long as it takes.”

Additionally, funding and research into pan-coronavirus and intranasal vaccines are urgently needed. However, these must be coordinated through a strategy that also ensures non-pharmaceutical measures are taken to end the perpetual community transmission of the virus and prevent the development of newer coronavirus strains. These treatments must be prioritized for healthcare workers and patients at long-term care facilities, the elderly, and essential workers, while infrastructure for air quality and ventilation needs to be urgently undertaken.

US-led initiative to strengthen imperialist grip on the Pacific

John Braddock

The week before the NATO summit in Madrid, a group of imperialist powers led by the US announced a new “coordination mechanism” for the Pacific while confronting and encircling China in preparation for war.

US Indo Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell [left] meets with Solomon Islands opposition leader Mathew Wale in Honiara, April 2022 (Image: Twitter - Dr Anna Powles@AnnaPowles)

The so-called “Partners in the Blue Pacific” project involving the US, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Japan—all with long histories of ruthless colonisation in the region—announced a broad “concept” plan to address “growing challenges to the regional rules-based order.” The phrase, promoted by Washington, refers to the post-World War II “order” established by the US in which it sets the rules globally.

A tour by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi saw multiple bilateral deals signed with almost a dozen Pacific nations. The Solomon Islands and China finalised a security agreement, prompting threats by Washington and Canberra of a possible “regime change” operation against the government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

The announcement was in line with the NATO summit which, amid the US-led proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, signaled the extension of the Atlantic military alliance to the Asia-Pacific. The leaders of Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia were invited to attend, addressed the gathering and held an inaugural meeting of the so-called “Asia-Pacific Four.”

The “Blue Pacific” initiative includes the four countries plus the United Kingdom. France was also initially involved but chose not to formally join. According to the project’s official communiqué, the five-nation pact will provide “closer, more purposeful, and more ambitious cooperation.” “Too often, our efforts have been uncoordinated, creating duplication in some cases and gaps on the others,” it declared.

The statement claimed the program aims to “strengthen” the Pacific Islands Forum, facilitate regular engagement and dialogue, and coordinate future activities to avoid “lost opportunities.” It targets areas such as climate change, maritime security (i.e. China’s fishing fleet), health, education, and “better access to infrastructure.” Funding for infrastructure development has been a key element of China’s growing influence.

White House Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell introduced the initiative at a June 23 discussion hosted by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies. The event was supported by the embassies of New Zealand and Australia and included a panel involving diplomats from Fiji, Samoa and the Marshall Islands.

Campbell said the US needed more diplomatic facilities across the region, and more contact with Pacific Island countries that at times “receive lesser attention.” He said: “I think you will see more cabinet-level, more senior officials, going to the Pacific as we go forward… recognising that nothing replaces, really, diplomatic boots on the ground.”

Claiming that Washington will work in “partnership” with the Pacific, Campbell declared: “Our mantra will be nothing in the Pacific without the Pacific… we do not take these bonds for granted.” He acknowledged there were “perceptions” that Washington had not always sufficiently taken the needs of islanders into account.

In fact, the upgraded “engagement” with the Pacific by the US and its allies has nothing to do with “listening” to Pacific governments—much less the peoples of the region—but is intent on aggressively re-asserting their geo-strategic dominance.

Visiting the Solomons in April, Campbell issued a menacing statement that Washington would “respond accordingly” to any announcement of a de facto Chinese permanent military presence in the country. Asked directly if this meant a US military invasion of Solomon Islands, a State Department official refused to deny or clarify the query, leaving no doubt of the Biden administration’s intentions.

Washington will now expedite the opening of an embassy in the Solomon Islands, announced earlier this year by Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he visited Fiji—the first trip to that country by the White House’s top diplomat in four decades.

Campbell said he envisioned Fiji would also be one of the main “hubs” of US engagement. Fiji, the Pacific’s second largest country after Papua New Guinea, occupies a pivotal strategic role. Following Prime Minister Bainimarama’s 2006 military coup, he looked towards China and Russia to counter moves by Canberra and Wellington to isolate his regime. He also encouraged other Pacific countries to take a more “independent” line.

In a “discreet” visit to Suva last month, US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro met with Fiji’s military commander General Logavatou Kalouniwai, naval Commodore Humphery Tawake and Jone Usamate, infrastructure and lands minister. US Ambassador-designate to Australia, Caroline Kennedy also joined. Speculation is rife that the US is considering opening a navy base in Fiji.

The Biden administration has already vowed to commit more resources to the Indo-Pacific. Following a meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in late May, the two leaders released a statement declaring that increased Chinese influence required “new resolve and closer co-operation” between the US, Wellington and other regional allies.

The countries joining the Blue Pacific partnership are all involved in the rapidly evolving “architecture” aimed against China. These include ASEAN, the Quad (the de facto military alliance of the US, Japan, India and Australia), the IPEF trade bloc and AUKUS—the militarist pact between Australia, UK and the US. AUKUS includes Australia’s acquisition of hypersonic missiles and nuclear-powered attack submarines.

As NATO vastly ramps up its military presence in Europe, US-led escalations are proceeding apace in the Pacific. Last month the Pentagon successfully conducted the first-ever Patriot missile live-firing near Palau, while major new bases are being established across Micronesia.

This month the US Indo-Pacific command has begun holding its largest ever Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC 2022) war games, in Hawaiian waters. It sees 38 ships from 26 countries, 4 submarines, 170 aircraft and 25,000 military personnel involved in naval manoeuvres, while ground units from 9 countries will conduct amphibious landings. Forty percent of RIMPAC participants are either in NATO or have NATO ties.

Meanwhile, in a major step-up of its own military presence in the Pacific, Japan has dispatched its so-called “Maritime Self Defence Force” to 11 Indo-Pacific countries. The flotilla includes the helicopter-carrying vessel Izumo, currently being upgraded as a de facto aircraft carrier, two destroyers, a submarine and aerial units. The deployment runs until October 28.

Pacific Island governments, for their part, are increasingly concerned over the intensifying geostrategic competition and militarization buffeting the region. The Pacific’s peak diplomatic body, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), will for the first time not hold an in-person meeting for dialogue partners at the Leaders’ Week in Suva this month. China, the US, Japan and others will all be effectively excluded.

College Women’s Association of Japan (CWAJ) Scholarships for Graduate Studies 2023

Application Deadline: 10th October 2022

Eligible Countries: Non Japanese countries

To be taken at (country): Japan

Type: Masters

Eligibility:

• Applicants must be non-Japanese, non-permanent resident women.
• Applicants must be residing in Japan at the time of application. (Individuals currently studying or living abroad are ineligible.).
• Submit an essay in English.

• The following are ineligible: 
• Holders of scholarships greater than ¥1.5 million from any other scholarship programs for the duration of the CWAJ Scholarship. Financial aid and awards from the university where the applicant will study may not be subject to the same limitation.
• Former recipients of CWAJ awards and members of CWAJ.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 2 million yen

How to Apply: 

• Application forms are available from their official website.
• Application documents should be directly sent to the association by postal mail 

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Morland African Writing Scholarship 2022

Application Deadline: 18th September, 2022

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Scholarships are open to anyone writing in the English language who was born in an African country or both of whose parents were born in Africa.

To be taken at (country): Candidate’s home country

Eligible Works: The Scholarships are meant for full length works of adult fiction or non-fiction. Poetry, plays, film scripts, children’s books, and short story collections do not qualify.

About the Award: It can be difficult for writers, before they become established, to write while simultaneously earning a living. To help meet this need the MMF annually awards a small number of Morland Writing Scholarships, with the aim being to allow each Scholar the time to produce the first draft of a completed book. 

At the end of each month scholars must send the Foundation 10,000 new words that they will have written over the course of the month. Scholars are also asked to donate to the MMF 20% of whatever they subsequently receive from what they write during the period of their Scholarship. This includes revenues as a result of film rights, serialisations or other ancillary revenues arising from the book written during the Scholarship period. These funds will be used to support other promising writers. The 20% return obligation should be considered a debt of honour rather than a legally binding obligation.

The Foundation will not review or comment on the monthly submissions as they come in. However, each Scholar will be offered the opportunity to be mentored by an established author or publisher. In most cases the mentorship will begin after the book has been finished and the Scholarship period has ended. At the discretion of the Foundation, the cost of the mentorship will be borne by the MMF. It is not the intention of the MMF to act as editor or a publisher. Scholars will need to find their own agents and publishers although the MMF is happy to offer advice.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The only condition imposed on the Scholars during the year of their Scholarship is that they must write. They will be asked to submit by e-mail at least 10,000 new words every month until they have finished their book or their Scholarship term has ended. If the first draft of the book is completed before the year is up, payments will continue while the Scholar edits and refines their work. 

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholars writing fiction will receive a grant of £18,000, paid monthly over the course of twelve months. At the discretion of the Foundation, Scholars writing non-fiction may receive a grant of up to £27,000, paid over a period  of up to eighteen months.

Duration of Scholarship: The Scholars may elect to start at any time between January and June in the year following the Scholarship Award. Their payments and the 10,000 word monthly submission requirement will start at the same time. The Foundation may exercise its discretion to offer non-fiction writers a longer Scholarship period of up to 18 months.

How to Apply: To qualify for the Scholarship a candidate must submit an excerpt from a piece of work of between 2,000 – 5,000 words written in English that has been published and offered for sale,. This will be evaluated by a panel of readers and judges set up by the MMF. The work submitted will be judged purely on literary merit. It is not the purpose of the Scholarships to support academic or scientific research, or works of special interest such as religious or political writings. Submissions or proposals of this nature do not qualify.

They should be sent by e-mail to scholarships@milesmorlandfoundation.com Please do not submit anything in hard copy or by terrestrial post.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

DAAD Helmut-Schmidt Masters in Public Policy and Good Governance Scholarship Programme 2023

Application Deadline: 31st July 2022

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Germany

About the Award: This programme is designed to further qualify future leaders in politics, law, economics and administration according to the principles of good governance and to prepare them in a praxis-oriented course for their professional life.

Very good graduates with a first university degree get the chance to obtain a master’s degree in disciplines that are of special relevance to the social, political and economic development of their home country.

The knowledge and experience acquired in Germany should enable the scholarship holders to later contribute to the establishment of democratically oriented economic and social systems aimed at overcoming social differences.

In addition, the training at German institutions of higher education should qualify the scholarship holders to become partners in the political and economic co-operation with Germany.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• The scholarship scheme is open to graduates in the field of social sciences, political sciences, law, economics and in public administration from Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, from countries in the Middle East as well as from the Ukraine.
• The programme is open for very well qualified graduates with a first university degree (bachelor or equivalent) who want to actively contribute to the social and economic development of their home countries.
• The scholarships are offered both for young graduates without professional experience and for mid-career professionals.

Selection Criteria: The main DAAD criteria for selection are the following:

• the study results so far
• knowledge of English (and German)
• political and social engagement
• a convincing description of the subject-related and
• personal motivation for the study project in Germany and the expected benefit when returning to the home country.
• The latest university degree should have been obtained during the six years prior to the application for the scholarship.
• Applicants cannot be considered if they have stayed in Germany for more than 15 months at the time of application.

All master´s courses have further additional requirements that must be fulfilled by the applicants in any case.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• Scholarships (of currently € 861 per month) for master´s degree courses at German higher education institutions.
• Academic education in the courses of study selected by the DAAD that are listed below, will take place from September/October 2023. The courses of study have an international focus and are offered in German and/or English.
• Health insurance cover in Germany
• Appropriate travel allowances for travel between Germany and the developing countries in question and Germany
• A study and research grant
• Rent subsidies and family supplements, as applicable

How to Apply: Applications have to be submitted in German or English. Please indicate that you are applying for the DAAD Helmut-Schmidt Programme (Master’s scholarships for Public Policy and Good Governance).

It is important to go through the Application requirements in the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: DAAD – Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Prograam)

Tony Elumelu Storytellers Fund 2022

Application Deadline?

29th July 2022

Tell Me About Award:

The Tony Elumelu Storytellers Fund is a standalone initiative and an extension of his commitment to catalysing a redefined African success story, powered by Africa’s youth and their creative ideas. The Fund calls on journalists, filmmakers, content producers, and visual and performing artists to submit multimedia creative ideas, that tell the stories of inspiring entrepreneurs and showcase the true and positive spirit of entrepreneurship in Africa.

What Type of Scholarship is this?

Grants

Who can apply?

Applicants must be aged between 18 and 35 years, living on the continent or in the Diaspora.  They must have a platform or portfolio of work that shines the light on entrepreneurship in Africa

Which Countries are Eligible?

African countries

How Many Scholarships will be Given?

What is the Benefit of Scholarship?

Btw $500 – $2000

How to Apply for Scholarship?

Apply in Link below

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Taiwan experiencing one of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the world

Ben McGrath

In recent weeks, COVID-19 cases and deaths have surged in Taiwan, with tens of thousands of new infections occurring daily. This is the result of Taipei’s decision to remove virus mitigation measures and to allow the deadly virus to run rampant. The corporate media has hailed Taipei’s actions as part of the agenda of placing profits before lives and also to demonize Beijing’s zero-COVID policy.

COVID-19 vaccination in Hsinchu, Taiwan (Image: Wikimedia)

As of Tuesday, Taiwan officially recorded 311,253 cases for the previous week, the most throughout all of Asia. This was more than three times as many as Japan, which recorded the second-largest number of cases in Asia in that period, according to the Worldometer website. Taiwan was surpassed globally only by the far more populous countries of Germany, the United States, France, Brazil, and Italy. Given the increased use of the more unreliable rapid antigen tests in Taiwan, it is almost certain that the actual number of cases is much higher.

Taken as a percentage of population, the outbreak in Taiwan, with 23.9 million people, reveals an even more tragic situation. A total of 980 people, or 41 people per million, have died in the past week alone, one of the highest per capita rates in the world. Throughout the course of the pandemic, 6,448 people have died from COVID-19 in Taiwan, the vast majority in the last two months. By contrast, mainland China, with a population of over 1.4 billion people, has had just 5,226 deaths, and none since the end of May when Beijing successfully halted a major outbreak in Shanghai.

The decision to allow COVID-19 to run rampant is being portrayed as a response to the latest outbreak that began in April. Falsely claiming that 99.5 percent of cases were mild or asymptomatic, Premier Su Tseng-chang stated that month, “We will not lock down cities like Shanghai did, but we also won’t remove our masks or stop taking virus prevention measures.”

However, the decision had been made long before that to abandon all mitigation measures. According to Nikkei Asia on April 15, an anonymous Western diplomat in Taipei, concerned about the impact of COVID restrictions on big business, stated that the government “told us three months ago they had decided to open up… But we have seen very little progress.”

In other words, Taipei’s claim that cases in the current outbreak were mild and therefore had allowed the island to remove restrictions is fraudulent. Instead, Tsai Ing-wen’s government was looking for an excuse to lift restrictions that would not anger the population, with many still favoring restrictions. A poll at the end of April found that 46.3 percent of people favored a zero-COVID policy while 45 percent supposedly supported “living with the virus.” Anti-Beijing propaganda undoubtedly played a role in decreased support for mitigation measures from earlier in the pandemic.

All of this is before the introduction of the highly contagious and immune-evading BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants to Taiwan. On Monday, Taiwan’s Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) announced that it had discovered 61 cases of BA.4 and BA.5 infections in travelers arriving from abroad, between June 10 and 18, bringing the total number to 126. While no cases of domestic transmission of these subvariants have been recorded yet, it is only a matter of time.

Despite the fact that the two subvariants have been driving a new surge of COVID-19 cases around the globe, this has not caused the Tsai government to rethink its lifting nearly all mitigation measures, including quarantine procedures for those testing positive and for both close contacts and overseas travelers.

While quarantine for people with positive tests has been cut to seven days, that of close contacts has been reduced to three days with four days of self-monitoring. The definition of a close contact has also been scaled back to include only those living together or working in close proximity.

On May 3, the same day new COVID cases officially soared to 23,128 on the island, Taipei announced it would reduce its 10-day quarantine requirement for new arrivals to seven days. By the end of the month, the island saw a record-high of 94,610 new daily cases on May 27. On June 15, the requirement was slashed further to three days. All of this means the quarantines are largely useless and will likely be scrapped in the near future.

The contrast between Beijing’s widely popular zero-COVID response on the mainland and Taipei’s decision to allow the deadly virus to tear through the population is stark. While Beijing’s policy has saved millions of lives and successfully contained outbreaks, Tsai’s government and her ruling Democratic Progressive Party is sacrificing the population to the interests of global finance capital.

Led by Wall Street, the ruling classes around the world have denounced Beijing’s zero-COVID approach, complaining about the impact on the global economy. The Washington Post, for example, wrote on April 29, as the outbreak in Taiwan gained steam, “The mounting economic cost and human toll of China’s unflinching ‘zero covid’ policy has given ammunition to those who believe a shift to living with the virus is inevitable.”

The Taiwanese bourgeoisie, however, is not simply bending to pressure from foreign capital. Its earlier promotion of virus restrictions was not based on concern for the population, but out of fear that allowing the virus to run rampant would lead to widespread anger in the working class, similar to the mass discontent that was expressed during the 2002–2004 SARS epidemic.

Now with the widespread promotion of anti-mainland sentiment in the establishment media contrasting with Taiwan’s “very successful approach,” in the words of the Guardian in May, Taipei feels it can lift restrictions, while drawing a false equivalence between virus elimination measures and authoritarianism.

This is also the tactic Washington is using to blame China for the growing economic crisis around the world, contrasting the supposedly “democratic” Taiwan to mainland China. In doing so, Washington is seeking to challenge the “One China” policy that states that Taiwan is a part of China, which the US formally acknowledges.

Throughout the course of the pandemic, first under Trump and then Biden, Washington has falsely accused Beijing of being responsible for the pandemic while holding up Taiwan as an example to be followed, thereby challenging Beijing’s legitimacy. The mounting toll of infections and deaths gives the lie to these claims and underscores the criminal character of the let-it-rip policy being pursued by virtually every government around the globe including in Taiwan and the US.

World Health Organization warns of war, famine, pestilence and death

Benjamin Mateus

Leaders of the World Health Organization (WHO) have issued their most dire warning about the confluence of crises facing humanity, including pandemics, the impact of the war in Ukraine on global food supplies, and the danger of widespread malnutrition and starvation.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, noted in his opening remarks at the organization’s Wednesday press conference that COVID cases have been steadily climbing for the last four weeks, with almost 4.5 million new infections a week beginning June 20, a more than 21 percent jump in new cases from the preceding week. The latest wave is being driven by the highly contagious and immune-evading BA.4/BA.5 Omicron subvariants.

Global COVID deaths also edged up this week, climbing over 9,000, a 7.4 percent weekly rise. The three affected WHO regions where deaths are climbing include the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific, regions where official policy is to accept the SARS-CoV-2 virus as endemic. He cautioned, “Our ability to track the virus is under threat as reporting and genomic sequences are declining meaning it is harder to track omicron and analyze future emerging variants.” 

The WHO director-general also underscored the persistence in vaccine inequity that plagues efforts even still. As his colleague, Dr. Mike Ryan, WHO’s Executive Director for Health Emergencies Program, remarked later in the conference with his usual dry sarcasm, “We get an ‘A’ for innovation, but an ‘F’ for fairness.” 

Notably, mid-year 2022 had been established as the WHO’s target date to have every country vaccinate 70 percent of its population. Though globally, 75 percent of health workers and those over 60 have been vaccinated, hundreds of millions of people, including the elderly and health care personnel in lower-income countries, still face the prospect of future waves of infections while they remain unvaccinated. Only 58 countries have hit the WHO target while the average vaccination rate among low-income countries is an appalling 13 percent.

Director-General Ghebreyesus also informed the press he had attended the G7 summit in Germany, briefing the leaders on the array of urgent issues, specifically underscoring his concerns over sustained transmission of monkeypox infections across the globe, the global food crisis that has its worst impact on over 23 million people in the Horn of Africa, and the global implications of the attack on the democratic rights of women signaled by the US Supreme Court repealing Roe v. Wade.  

The director-general did not elaborate on the outcome of these discussions nor did the press ask any follow-up questions about the summit and any commitments by the G7 (there were none of any substance) to address the pandemic and the convergence of social crises which are causing massive disruptions to the everyday life of the world’s population.

Monkeypox is the newest of the global threats, with 5,309 confirmed and suspected cases globally across 67 countries and territories. The seven-day moving average has been climbing steadily, having reached 300 new cases per day. Social media discussions among scientists have warned that based on simple modeling, the world could see 100,000 cases by August and the first million by September if the spread continues unmitigated.

Data scientist J. Weiland wrote on Twitter, “We are definitely in the unmitigated spread phase of this outbreak which should follow consistent exponential spread for some time. It will be interesting to see if Rt [Reproduction factor] slows down once it spreads beyond high-risk demographics.” 

World Health Organization Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (centre) declaring the coronavirus pandemic a Public Health emergency of International Concern [Credit: Fabrice Coffrini]

The epicenters of the current global outbreak remain Europe and North America. England has reported over 1,000 cases, followed by Germany with 969, and then Spain with 800. The case count in the US has reached 351 infections.

Dr. Ghebreyesus offered these explanatory remarks on the recent IHR Emergency Committee meeting on June 23, saying that “On monkeypox, while the Emergency Committee did not advise that the current outbreak presents a PHEIC [Public Health Emergency of International Concern], they acknowledge the emergency nature of the event and that controlling the further spread requires intense response efforts. They also advised that I should reconvene them quickly based on the evolving situation, which I will do.” 

He continued, “I’m concerned about sustained transmission because it would suggest the virus is establishing itself and it could move into high-risk groups including children, the immunocompromised, and pregnant women. We are starting to see this with several children already infected.” The WHO director clarified later that a proposal to declare monkeypox a PHEIC immediately was defeated by a vote of 11-3, with the majority feeling that more data was required but acknowledging the urgent concerns raised by the spread of the infection.

The Biden administration said this week that the Department of Health and Human Services would make 56,000 doses of vaccines against smallpox available immediately, with another 300,000 in coming weeks. This figure is expected to rise to a total of 1.6 million doses of the vaccine, given as two doses, four weeks apart. The plan is to direct these vaccines to those with confirmed infections or presumed to have been exposed.   

The director-general did not state when he would reconvene the Emergency Committee, but some of the following conditions would trigger a reassessment: increased growth rate over the next three weeks, cases identified among sex workers or vulnerable groups (immunocompromised, HIV infected, pregnant women, and children), increase in severity or lethality, evidence of spread back into animals, and evidence of infections of different clades (lineages) with higher virulence detected outside of endemic regions. 

One of the major concerns raised at the WHO press conference involved the international crisis caused by the disruption of supply chains, inflationary pressures that are driving food prices and food shortages that are rapidly leading to mass starvation across large regions of the world. These are being exacerbated by the global climate that has brought unprecedented drought to many areas.

Dr. Ghebreyesus warned, “The food crisis across the globe … [are] leading to millions of people missing meals and going hungry. This is having major physical and mental health repercussions … Lack of food and nutrition weakens people’s immune system and puts them more at risk of disease. Children that are undernourished are at higher risk of death from pneumonia and diarrheal diseases and measles.”

Max Lawson, Head of Inequality Policy at Oxfam, said of the G7’s failure to address the hunger crisis, “The G7 say themselves that 323 million people are on the brink of starvation, because of the current crisis [the US-NATO-led war with Russia], a new record high. Nearly a billion people, 950 million, are projected to be hungry in 2022. We need at least $28.5 billion more from the G7 to finance food and agricultural investments to end hunger and fill the huge gap in UN humanitarian appeals. The $4.5 billion [the G7] announced is a fraction of what is needed.” Additionally, the global humanitarian appeal fund is short $37 billion.

He added, “The G7 want us to think COVID-19 is over, and the ongoing global health crisis doesn’t exist. Tell that to the many millions yet to have a single vaccine, and the many still dying from this cruel disease.”

There are presently over 23 million people who need immediate assistance and support in Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan and South Sudan, who have faced two years of alarming failed rainy seasons. Estimates place the number of livestock lost in the millions, in a region where agriculture and farming are the main economic lifeline for the population. 

Amina Abdulla, Concern Worldwide’s regional director for the Horn of Africa and a social development specialist, noted that an estimated 5 million children in the region are malnourished, with 1.6 million experiencing severe malnutrition. She said, “Without an urgent response and scaling up of the humanitarian support, we risk 350,000 of these children dying.”

Peter Sands, executive director of the Global Funds to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, told Agence France-Presse (AFP), “I think we’ve probably already begun our next health crisis. It’s not a new pathogen but it means people who are poorly nourished will be more vulnerable to the existing diseases. I think the combined impact of infectious diseases and the food shortages and the energy crisis … we can be talking about millions of extra deaths because of this.” Indeed, worldwide measles cases have nearly doubled since last year. For the first time in a decade, the WHO has reported a rise in deaths associated with tuberculosis.

The director-general ended his opening remarks on the issue of the US Supreme Court’s reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to an abortion. He said, “I want to reaffirm the WHO’s position. All women should have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and health, FULL STOP! Safe abortion is healthcare. It saves lives. Restricting it drives women and girls towards unsafe abortions resulting in complications, even death. The evidence is irrefutable.” 

Without a doubt, beside the poor working class women in America who will be denied these fundamental rights, clandestine cottage industries will quickly emerge to offer dangerous procedures that can have severe consequences—infection, sterility, death, criminal prosecution—and the right-wing ban will embolden fascistic and bigoted elements throughout the world. 

US Supreme Court preemptively blocks EPA regulations which would mitigate global warming

Alex Findijs

The Supreme Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday, deciding that it did not have the authority to regulate pollution from power plants on a nationwide basis. In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the conservative majority on the court has taken a provocative and reactionary action defending the interests of the fossil fuel industry. 

Emissions from a coal-fired power plant are silhouetted against the setting sun in Kansas City, Missouri, February 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

At the center of the ruling is an Obama era policy plan, called the Clean Power Plan, that was drafted in 2015. Under the plan, the EPA would have imposed regulations that restrict carbon emissions from states, primarily caused by power plants, which would have encouraged a transition to renewable energy. 

But the Supreme Court blocked that plan in 2016, and it never went into effect. The Trump administration then repealed the plan and imposed its own more lenient policies. That Trump era plan was also blocked by the federal appeals court in Washington D.C, which ruled that the EPA could in fact adopt broad policy plans. 

Despite neither the Obama nor Trump emissions plans being in effect, several Republican states and two coal companies preemptively sued the Biden administration, expecting him to introduce a plan similar to Obama’s. But Biden’s emissions plan never came, leaving legal experts to expect the court to overlook the case. 

To their surprise, however, the Supreme Court took up the case in West Virginia v. EPA. The resultant ruling is effectively a ban on a policy that does not actually exist, instead attacking future policies and limiting the broader regulatory power of federal agencies. 

In his brief on the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act—initially passed in 1970, years before federal regulators had any serious knowledge of climate change—did not give the EPA the express authority from Congress to regulate statewide emissions. The ruling still allows the environmental agency to regulate individual power plants but severely limits its ability to combat climate change caused by the fossil fuel industry as a whole. 

The Clean Air Act calls for the reduction of air pollution through the “best system of emissions reduction,” a vague authority that the EPA has cited as the basis for much of its work. The court’s ruling states that the act is not specific enough, and that the EPA may not operate beyond the bounds of how Congress has explicitly instructed it to act. 

The basis of this ruling is formed on the “major questions” doctrine, a judicial principle the Supreme Court granted itself in order to rule on issues of “vast economic and political significance.” In other words, if the court determines an issue to be significant enough, it may utilize an un-enumerated authority to prevent federal agencies from reaching beyond their express written powers granted by Congress. 

The significance of this ruling and its legal justification are far reaching. Steve Vladek, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, described the ruling in an interview with CNN as “cataclysmic for modern administrative law.”

He continued by saying: “For a century, the federal government has functioned on the assumption that Congress can broadly delegate regulatory power to executive branch agencies. Today’s ruling opens the door to endless challenges to those delegations—on everything from climate change to food safety standards—on the ground that Congress wasn’t specific enough in giving the agency the power to regulate such ‘major’ issues.” 

Such a ruling opens the door for the Supreme Court, as well as lower courts, to block regulations on businesses on the grounds that the responsible agencies were not granted specific authority. And there is concern among legal experts at how ill defined the major questions doctrine is. 

“It’s surprisingly unprincipled,” said Jay Duffy, an attorney and power plant emissions expert for the Clean Air Task Force, to CNN. “It’s a can of worms that has been opened and without much guidance as to how important is important. How major is major? I think it could create a lot of problems.” 

The Supreme Court has also used this doctrine to block regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requiring COVID-19 vaccinations, efforts by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco sales and to overturn the eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the early stages of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

The court had previously ruled in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in general based on the authority of the Clean Air Act. Using the major questions doctrine, the court rejected the EPA’s argument that it did not have express authority because the language of the act is “sweeping” and “capacious” and that the agency was unjustified in its inaction against climate change. 

Dissenting from the court’s ruling were three of the current conservative justices: Roberts, Alito and Thomas. 

Seeing a chance to undo their previous defeat, the conservative majority of the court decided that they could now drastically change the policy powers of a federal agency, usurping the powers of Congress the court claims to protect.  

The political danger of the ruling was captured by Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote that “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

This decision, along with its deeply reactionary ruling on abortion rights earlier this month, is a demonstration of the court’s right-wing political character and the fascistic turn of the Republican Party. 

The court has effectively granted itself legislative powers, with the aim of stripping the working class of its hard-won democratic rights and undoing regulatory reforms of the past which might even slightly hinder the pursuit of profit. 

The ruling on Roe v. Wade and the creation of many regulatory agencies, including the EPA, came at the end of the liberal period that followed the Second World War and the civil rights movement. Such reforms are now being torn apart by the Supreme Court, which is acting as a theocratic cabal in the service of the Republican Party and the most reactionary elements within the ruling class. 

After the elimination of the right to abortion, Clarence Thomas, whose wife was directly involved in the January 6 coup attempt, has been explicit in his intention to target other court rulings, including those that guarantee the right to gay marriage and contraception, among others. 

The Democratic Party bears responsibility as well. For over five decades they have failed to establish any comprehensive plan to fight climate change and have refused to grant federal regulators the proper authority and resources to do so. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling could be undone with the passage of a bill to combat climate change, granting the EPA the express powers that the court demands. But the Democrats have consistently failed to pass any legislation of note. From voting rights to climate change, the Democrats have repeatedly built false promises of reform only to purposely trip at the final hurdle. As the Republicans and the Supreme Court move to attack the rights and protections of the working class, no progressive solution can be found through the feckless politics of the Democratic Party.