24 Nov 2022

The strain on pediatric hospitals from a triple epidemic of RSV, COVID and the flu continues unabated

Benjamin Mateus


With the triple threat of RSV, influenza, and COVID having materialized much earlier than previously predicted (usually arriving in December or January after the holidays), many children instead of spending Thanksgiving weekend at home with extended families revisiting memories and enjoying a meal around a lavishly laden table will be huddled with their parents in emergency rooms across the United States seeking medical attention for their respiratory ailments.

The triple threat of infections is devastating a health care system that is already in free fall, as described by a letter sent to the White House by organizations of doctors, nurses and health care providers earlier this month, urging the president to address the crisis faced by emergency departments (EDs). Wait times for admissions or transfers are extending far beyond the four-hour limits recommended by health authorities, risking the lives of the patients both in the EDs and hospital wards.

Most of the Atlantic seaboard, Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest states are registering high levels of influenza-like illnesses (ILI). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that influenza activity in the US is higher than it has been in more than a decade, exceeding their epidemic thresholds. As of November 18, more than 4.4 million flu cases had been registered. There have been 38,000 hospitalizations and over 2,100 deaths across the country.

A critical care nurse administers an anti-viral medication to a COVID-19 positive patient at Kootenai Health regional medical center in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, on Sept. 6, 2021. [AP Photo/Michael H. Lehman/DVIDS U.S. Navy/via AP]

With approximately an average of 8 people per 100,000 population being placed in hospitals, children under the age of five are only behind adults 65 and older at 13.6 per 100,000, nearly twice the national average. Many in the corporate press had claimed these were a byproduct of a so-called “immunity-debt” that left many children vulnerable because they had gone two years with essentially no exposure to these respiratory pathogens. 

Such pseudo-scientific explanations facilitate the current back-to-school policies heavily promoted by the Democratic Party. The claim is that such infections have clinical benefits to children, meaning that the limited measures against COVID that saved millions of lives were somehow harmful to children. In actuality, COVID killed more children than flu and RSV, despite mitigation measures which were far too limited.

Immunology professor at the University of Surrey Deborah Dunn-Walters told the Financial Times, “Immunity debt as an individual concept is not recognized in immunology. The immune system is not viewed as a muscle that has to be used all the time to be kept in shape and, if anything, the opposite is the case.”

Indeed! Pediatric hospitals have been strained for several weeks from an onrush of young infants infected by RSV and other respiratory illnesses. For newborns in particular, RSV is quite dangerous, due to their narrower upper respiratory tracts and fragile condition. In fact, RSV-related hospitalization rates for babies under six months reached 145 per 100,000 and those six to 12 months of age at 63 per 100,000.

Travelling nurse Dana Free, who was working in a pediatric intensive-care unit in Danville, Pennsylvania, explained to the Wall Street Journal, “If you think of it [the small airways] as a straw, and that’s your normal breathing, that’s fine. You coat it in congestion, essentially snot and mucus, you’re making that airway much smaller.” 

What Free is describing is tantamount to suffocating. A sign of serious illness is a wheezing cough that sounds like a barking seal. The squeaking noise when babies inhale is called stridor. These are accompanied by retractions in their chest walls as they gasp for air. Lack of oxygenation will turn their fingers, toes, and lips blue, critical signs of impending respiratory collapse.

Hospital occupancy rates have continued their steady climb since early August and have reached a rate of 76 percent for pediatric inpatient beds across the US. The Department of Health and Human Services reported that 80 percent of all pediatric intensive-care beds are full. In states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas, the occupancy rate for pediatric ICUs is over 90 percent.

Demand for hospital beds is also being compounded by higher rates of mental health and suicidal ideations/attempts among children of all age ranges. As one emergency room physician, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the American College of Emergency Physicians, “We are a 28-bed pediatric ED, with a catchment area of 2.8 million children. I came into shift yesterday morning. We had 15 children on psych holds, many of them waiting in the lobby for 24 to 72 hours stays so we could use our beds to see medical patients. One of those patients had been in the ED for more than 150 hours.” 

He added, “We had ten admission boarding, seven on high-flow oxygen, four of which were Peds ICU level. There are no open Peds ICU beds in our four closest counties, including our own. We had 35 patients in the waiting room in addition to the 20 medical patients being managed by the ED. We had seven transfers pending from outside facilities to the ED, plus more awaiting direct admission from an outside ED to an inpatient bed whenever a bed became available. One that left another hospital’s ED against medical advice and came to our ED had been waiting three days for transfer. They had an arterio-venous malformation [a vascular condition] that needed urgent surgery.”

Two hospitals in Oregon, Doernbecher Children’s Hospital & Science University and Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel, which provide the vast majority of intensive care treatment for children for their region, have been forced to implement crisis standards of care that allow hospitals to decide which patients will get treatments without facing legal repercussions.

Moreover, the implementation of crisis standards of care also allows hospital administrations to loosen patient to staff ratios, meaning nurses would be obligated to assume care for more patients despite the risks in terms of patient safety and wellbeing. The burnout of health care workers has reached epidemic proportions. The wellbeing and mental health of these professionals have been eroded by overwork in a setting where risk of exposure to infectious disease and violence remains high. 

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that the US will need more than 203,000 new registered nurses annually to 2026 to close the gap created by just the retiring workforce. However, nursing schools have turned away over 90,000 qualified applicants last year due to lack of faculty to train them nor rooms in nursing school to chair them. Meanwhile, up to 40 percent of nurses in practice are strongly considering leaving.

Michelle Collins, dean of the College of Nursing and Health at Loyola University in New Orleans, told reporter Mariel Padilla, “The pandemic exacerbated a situation that was already becoming dire. So many nurses left the profession during the pandemic because of burnout. We have a huge number heading towards retirement and a shortage of nursing faculty to teach new nurses, making for a perfect storm.” 

She also noted, “There’s a huge spike in the number of nurses who are leaving their career in the first three months of being a nurse. And not like going to another job—they’re leaving nursing, which is astounding to me. That’s horrible.”

Nurses aren’t leaving the bedside because they are disinterested in their professions. Rather, the conditions under which they are forced to work, their unmet concerns over patient safety, the monetization of health care, are deeply troubling, creating hardships and chronic distress for them and their profession. Worse, they are being scapegoated for the errors and safety violations that are inherent to the dangerous conditions created by demands by hospital systems to operate under the principle of doing more with less.

The crisis in health care will continue to grow more appalling as economic realities—labor costs, supply chain issues, and inflation—continue to erode the capacity of health systems to deliver care to their patient populations. A recent report in Fierce Healthcare noted that upwards of 60 percent of hospitals across the country will end 2022 “with their operations in the red versus the 34 percent reported in 2019.” The projections were made by Kaufman Hall on behalf of the American Hospital Associations. 

Senior Vice President at Kaufman Hall Lisa Goldstein said at last week’s press conference that financial margins in 2022 will remain depressed while expenses remain above pre-pandemic levels. “Hospitals will lose billions,” she said.

John J. Lynch, president and CEO of Main Line Health in Philadelphia’s suburbs, warned, “The numbers are all going in the wrong direction, and I’m concerned we’re going to see more healthcare providers close as a result of the current financial reality, which will impact access to care.”

He noted somberly, “In my 35 years as a healthcare leader, this is the most fragile I’ve ever seen the American healthcare system.”

23 Nov 2022

Attack of the Killer Robots

Roberto J. González



Photograph Source: Lt. Col. Leslie Pratt – Public Domain

Imagine you’re living in Kyiv, a city that has been relatively calm for most of the war in Ukraine.

One chilly morning, you’re awakened by a faint buzzing noise, like the sound of swarming wasps. It gets louder and louder—until suddenly, intense flashes light up the windows of your apartment.

You peek outside, just in time to see part of a residential building—your neighbors’ homes—collapse in flames. Acrid clouds of smoke billow from a hole in the side. Down below, you see the wreckage of several small delta-winged drones.

Welcome to the world of virtual warfare.

Last month’s Russian assault on Kyiv is a stark reminder of how automated weapon systems threaten to make wars more traumatic than previous conflicts—and potentially lethal.

The attacks also foreshadow a future in which inexpensive robotic weapons can be easily deployed by virtually anyone—not just military forces, but also criminal organizations and rogue actors seeking to unleash political terror.

Even hobbyist drones, which are subject to a tangled web of regulatory regimes in our country, can be weaponized with modified grenades or other explosives.

Since Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February, they’ve reportedly used several different drones made by the same company that developed the Kalashnikov rifle. The newest weapons in Russia’s arsenal are Iranian-made Shahed-136 drones, which cost about the same as a Toyota Corolla.

The Shahed drones used in the Kyiv raids are powered by a simple air-cooled engine. In fact, many parts used in the Shahed-136 are off-the-shelf components, readily available online. Experts think the drone’s electronic navigation system uses a civilian-grade GPS sensor that allows users to accurately program their targets using satellite technology.

These rudimentary swarming robots can wreak havoc on Ukrainian cities. Last month’s raids led to dangerous confusion on the streets of Kyiv, as police fired desperately at the invading drones. Living under constant fear of attack can have mental health consequences for target communities.

Ukraine’s troops have also used attack robots. Just days ago, Ukrainian aerial and sea drones launched a major assault on Russia’s storied Black Sea fleet, seriously damaging its flagship vessel at the Crimean port of Sevastapol.

In the first weeks of the conflict, Ukrainian forces deployed Turkish-made remote-controlled drones armed with guided missiles against Russian troop formations. Over the past few months, they’ve also acquired hundreds of US-made “suicide drones,” loitering munitions with names like Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost.

The idea of virtual warfare was once seductive. It held out hope that someday we might conduct wars without soldiers, without physical battlegrounds, and maybe even without death.

But virtual wars may turn out to be deadlier than anything in the past, especially now that lethal autonomous weapon systems—what some call “killer robots” or “slaughterbots”—are on the horizon. These technologies use AI (artificial intelligence) and sophisticated algorithms to locate targets and to determine when and where to attack.

Although we haven’t yet reached the point of armed, data-driven robotic armies, we should be aware of the perils of militarizing AI.

Fully autonomous weapon systems take human decision-makers out of the equation—a frightening prospect, given the fact that remote-controlled drones have killed thousands of civilians since the CIA and the Pentagon first used them in 2001.

The US military’s own documents reveal how drone wars in the Middle East from 2014 to the present were marked by intelligence errors, flawed targeting, and needless civilian deaths—in stark contrast to official portrayals of precision air strikes.

Autonomous weapons are likely to be even more destructive.

The physical and emotional costs of such weapons far outweigh any benefits. Ahmed Ali Jaber, whose relatives were indiscriminately killed by a US drone in Yemen, knows how automated warfare can leave deep psychological scars. “My children deserve so much better,” he writes. “I want them to watch fireworks, not drone strikes. I don’t want my family to cry every time they hear a drone.”

And its not just suspected enemies who are harmed by remote-control warfare. Many US drone pilots undergo severe psychological strain and mental health problems, including substance abuse disorder and PTSD.

The threat of war by algorithms urgently requires swift action, before it’s too late. National governments and international bodies such as the United Nations must develop unambiguously clear regulations on how automated and autonomous weapons are used. Otherwise, rival superpowers like the United States, China, Iran, and Russia will convince themselves that they’re locked into a global AI arms race. The current situation is comparable to the nuclear arms race in the earliest years of the Cold War. Proliferation of these weapons poses a grave danger to us all.

According to Automated Decision Research , more than seventy countries have called for an international treaty setting limits on the use of autonomous weapon systems and weaponized AI. The movement to stop killer robots is growing, and there’s an opportunity to find common cause with millions of others who are concerned about the hidden costs of digital warfare.

We should act now—while there’s still time.

Many UK excess deaths likely caused by COVID reinfections

Robert Stevens


The two weeks to November 11—the latest data available—saw 1,100 more lives lost to COVID in Britain, as warning are made by scientists of an impending winter “tripledemic” of COVID, flu and (RSV) respiratory syncytial virus.

The Conservative government declared the pandemic over long ago, as all mitigation measures were torn up. Since so-called “Freedom Day” on July 19, 2021, over 56,000 people have died due to COVID according to Johns Hopkins University figures available on Our World in Data. This brings the number of dead in Britain from COVID to 211,346. The government has manipulated the number of COVID cases and deaths, but even its own tally now approaches 200,000 (196,241).

The National Covid Memorial Wall in London [Photo: WSWS]

Deaths from COVID have been normalised to such an extent that cases and fatalities are barely reported. The Independent wrote that almost a million cases, “an estimated 940,700 people in private households were likely to have had coronavirus in the week to November 8.” But all is fine because this was “down from 1.3 million the previous week.”

The Daily Mirror reported Tuesday that RSV “poses a far bigger threat to young children, the elderly and the vulnerable – with nearly 7.4 percent of the general population currently infected.” Professor Francois Balloux, director at the UCL Genetics Institute, said, “RSV is a leading cause of child hospitalisation and the virus kills more than 100,000 children each year globally. That’s more than 50 times as many children than those who died from Covid throughout the pandemic. It’s a far bigger threat to young children than Covid or seasonal flu.”

COVID cases are being allowed to pile up even as real-world data confirms fears that every COVID reinfection causes cumulative damage and significantly increases the risk of hospitalisation, long-term complications and death.

Following three years of successive COVID waves, there has been a huge surge in excess deaths. But every effort is being made to minimise the role of the pandemic in this phenomenon.

The Telegraph noted earlier this month, “Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that in the week ending Oct 21, there were 1,714 excess deaths in England and Wales, of which only 469 [our emphasis] were due to Covid - just 27 per cent of the total.” It added, “Throughout October, there have been an average of 1,564 extra deaths per week, compared with a weekly average of just 315 in 2020 and 1,322 in 2021.” The number of excess deaths “is 16.8 percent higher than normal,” the newspaper reported.

The Telegraph goes on to state that “some of the unexplained deaths are being caused by collateral damage from the pandemic, when operations and treatments were cancelled or delayed as the health service concentrated on Covid.” It adds, “The NHS is also struggling from long-term staffing issues and current shortages because of coronavirus, leading to record waits for ambulances, treatment and surgery.”

There is no doubt that the perilous state of the terribly under-resourced National Health Service (NHS), whose spending has been slashed in real-terms instead of it receiving the hundreds of billions of pounds in extra funding it requires, is a factor in the number of excess deaths. But however this is cynically presented by the Telegraph, a staunch Tory advocate of cuts and other austerity measures, it was COVID infections and their impact that took the situation in the NHS to breaking point.

In addition, evidence is emerging pointing to the terrible impact of COVID on the health of those infected and re-infected. According to a British Heart Foundation study, there have been over 30,000 excess deaths linked to heart disease since the start of the pandemic, equating to an average of more than 230 extra deaths a week over and above what would be expected for heart disease. The right-wing Spectator also points to the huge numbers of people waiting for cardiac treatment amid record NHS waiting lists and the fact that the ambulance service—heavily hit by NHS spending cuts—is unable to provide a time response to many reporting heart attacks and strokes.

Nowhere in the mass media is the impact of COVID on excess deaths, and particularly cardiac related deaths, being given the necessary attention. The surge in excess deaths in many countries is real world data confirming what is being revealed by several studies.

This month the WSWS drew attention to a ground-breaking study published in scientific journal Nature Medicine by COVID-19 researcher Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly and a team at Washington University in the US. The study, “Acute and post-acute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection,” was based on comparing more than 150,000 veterans, aged around 60, who had recovered from acute COVID-19 with their uninfected peers, as well as with a pre-pandemic control group.

The study makes dire warnings of the consequences of people being infected and reinfected multiple times with COVID. The authors write, “Compared to no reinfection, reinfection contributed additional risks of death… hospitalization… and sequelae including pulmonary, cardiovascular, hematological, diabetes, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, musculoskeletal and neurological disorders.”

Commenting on the survey Nature wrote, “People who had been admitted to intensive care with acute infections had a drastically higher risk of cardiovascular problems during the next year… For some conditions, such as swelling of the heart and blood clots in the lungs, the risk shot up at least 20-fold compared with that in uninfected peers. But even people who had not been hospitalized had increased risks of many conditions, ranging from an 8% increase in the rate of heart attacks to a 247% increase in the rate of heart inflammation”.

Due to the abandoning of the Tories of all testing for COVID, with the backing of the Labour opposition in order to “live well with COVID”, it is not possible to know how many people in the UK have been infected and reinfected. However, a study issued in August by Long Covid Support and Long Covid Kids—based on responses from 484 adults and 112 children and young people—found that 80 percent of those who classed themselves as still suffering Long COVID symptoms said that another COVID infection exacerbated their symptoms. Of those who were in recovery or remission from Long COVID, reinfection recurred in about 60 percent of individuals. Of these, 40 percent said that the second bout of Long COVID was just as severe as the first time, 32 percent said it was less severe and 28 percent said it was more severe.

While estimates that 350,000 cats caught COVID during the pandemic merited an article in the Telegraph this week, any talk over the vast risk to the human population, particularly the most vulnerable, was ditched long ago. This has impacted on the uptake of COVID vaccinations. This autumn has seen a relatively low take up of the COVID booster, with only around 41 percent of those eligible in England receiving a jab.

Everything is in place for a devastating resurgence of COVID—including in the form of possibly more dangerous and vaccine immune mutations—amid the inevitable spread of seasonal flu and other respiratory illnesses and under conditions in which the NHS cannot provide necessary treatment for millions of people. Around 50,000 nursing vacancies have not been filled. Thousands of staff, from midwives to ambulance workers, are leaving.

Chinese government’s new COVID policy causes public concern as infections rise

Jerry Zhang


Since the Chinese government promulgated its new “Twenty Articles” policy of relaxing COVID-19 restrictions on November 11, the government’s move away from its zero-COVID policy has triggered confusion and unease throughout the population.

Although the government still claims to adhere to a zero-COVID policy, the relaxation of measures such as mass testing, contact tracing and quarantine protocols in the “Twenty Articles” clearly signals the beginning of a policy shift.

A man and a child stand in line at a coronavirus testing site in Beijing, November 22, 2022. [AP Photo/Andy Wong]

At the same time, a rapid increase in the number of infections, after nearly three years in which zero-COVID policies have repeatedly suppressed transmission in the world’s most populous country, has caused uncertainty and public discussion.

The “Twenty Articles” include restrictions on the ability of localities to issue lockdowns, as well as a shortening of quarantine times for close contacts of people infected with COVID-19, a loosening of travel restrictions to and within China, and the ending of contact tracing for secondary contacts.

Although serving as a national guiding policy, the “Twenty Articles” were first thoroughly implemented in Shijiazhuang City, the capital of Hebei Province. Shijiazhuang, a city of 11 million people near Beijing, became the initial testing ground for the reopening policy.

China’s ruling class and many media outlets were the first to trumpet this signal, with statements even comparing the policy shift to “the liberation of Shijiazhuang in 1947” during the civil war against the Kuomintang of General Chiang Kai-shek.

Even according to official data, the number of cases rose considerably after the easing of restrictions. On November 9, Shijiazhuang reported just 59 asymptomatic cases, but by November 13, the figure had jumped to 3 new confirmed cases and 541 asymptomatic cases, before declining for three consecutive days.

Many media outlets focused on this uncommon “achievement.” This was opposed and ridiculed on social media, however.

One comment on social media warned: “Don’t deceive yourself. Now that the testing is cancelled, this data will naturally drop. But this false data is meaningless.” Another said: “Eighty percent of my family members are infected, but you say that the data has dropped by 80 percent. For the first time, I feel that the pandemic is so close to me.”

At the same time, the Shijiazhuang Municipal Government issued a “letter to all residents” stating that “everyone” was firstly “responsible for their own health.” While the letter claimed that this “is not relaxing the epidemic prevention,” the public response indicated a lack of trust in this statement.

Contrary to media claims, Shijiazhuang does not seem to have become a scene of “consumption recovery driving economic recovery.” A restaurant owner said on social media: “Since the opening, the restaurant’s turnover has plummeted. Our people are not fools, they will not take risks of infection by going out to eat.”

At the same time, a parent of a primary school student reported: “On the first day of school resumption, only two of the 52 students in the class came to school.”

According to media reports, face masks and Lianhua Qingwen capsules in many pharmacies have been out of stock. Lianhua Qingwen capsules are a Chinese patent medicine that is believed to relieve fever symptoms.

A rapid rise in the number of infections then poured cold water on the previous media excitement. Whereas on November 16 just 182 new cases of asymptomatic infections were added, by November 20, according to the Hebei Provincial Health Commission, two new cases were confirmed in Shijiazhuang with 639 asymptomatic infections. While still comparatively low, the figures point to the danger of an explosion in the number of infections.

When Shijiazhuang authorities announced the cancellation of normal PCR testing, residents expressed uneasiness and fears that this would accelerate infections. “Even if a test site is needed, it should not be Shijiazhuang,” one wrote. “It is absurd and irresponsible to suddenly relax all measures when the number of infections is rising rapidly. This is by no means scientific.”

Due to the rapid increase in cases, the Shijiazhuang City Epidemic Prevention and Control Headquarters issued a notice on the evening of November 20 stating that nucleic acid testing would be conducted in multiple urban areas of the city for five consecutive days.

The notice said it was necessary to “concentrate efforts to control the pandemic in key areas and curb the spread of the epidemic as soon as possible.” This was needed to achieve “dynamic zero COVID” on the social level, “to protect people’s lives and health to the greatest extent, and minimise the impact of the epidemic on economic and social development.”

The notice declared that residents in high-risk areas should strictly stay at home and residents in other areas should stay at home in principle. Residents should not go out or gather unless necessary, and minimize the flow of people, except for staff involved in urban operations, market supply guarantees, public services and epidemic prevention and control.

The notice also stated that in order to meet the daily needs of residents, each family could arrange for one person to go out for two hours a day, with a 24-hour PCR test certificate, to purchase daily necessities.

The lack of clarity on the government’s position has caused further confusion. According to the information on the internet, there is reason to believe that many cities have restarted lockdown policies in high-risk areas. The Baiyun District of Guangzhou City also announced a five-day lockdown on Monday. Guangzhou, home to more than 18 million people, is one of the Chinese cities most affected by the current pandemic.

But the implementation of relevant policies is being largely communicated verbally through vague language. A blogger described the situation. “I asked friends who work in the public sector in Beijing and Shijiazhuang, and none of them knew what to do, and there was no clear policy, so they could only guess.” This post received widespread approval.

Despite widespread public perception that the new policy has failed, the current official explanation is that local governments are making policy adjustments based on the “Twenty Articles.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bureaucracy is clearly facing a dilemma. It confronts huge economic pressure from global and domestic big business for the scrapping of the zero-COVID policy on the one hand, but, on the other, growing public alarm over signs that the pandemic is rapidly expanding.

According to official data, on November 21 China had 2,225 new confirmed cases and 25,902 new asymptomatic infections—a total of 28,127—up from a near-record 27,095 the previous day.

Germany’s “Citizen’s Income” will reinforce poverty levels

Carola Kleinert


On November 14, the German government introduced a bill in the Bundestag to replace the existing Hartz IV system of social security with a so-called Citizen's Income. The bill was rejected in Germany’s second house (Bundesrat) following opposition from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU). The mediation committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat is due to negotiate a compromise on November 23.

The debate in the Bundesrat was a continuation of the heated arguments which took place in the Bundestag and the media. Anyone who has followed this debate would understandably react with disgust. The governing coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Greens and neoliberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) have been avidly spreading the lie that their bill is the “biggest social reform in 20 years.”

Poverty in Germany—a bottle collector in Berlin [Photo by Sascha Kohlmann / flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0]

In fact, the planned Citizen’s Income is a hypocritical relabeling of the hated Hartz laws introduced in early 2005 by the former SPD-Green coalition government led by Gerhard Schröder (SPD). In the period since, the Hartz laws have forced millions of people into poverty and precarious low-wage jobs.

The laws legalised numerous forms of precarious employment that had previously been prohibited or restricted by law—so-called mini-jobs, extended temporary work, temporary contracts and restrictive work contracts. The centrepiece was the introduction of Hartz IV basic security payments. Unemployed people lost their entitlement to unemployment benefits after one year. They then had to accept any job, no matter how poorly paid, and could only claim state support after they had exhausted their savings.

As a result of these laws, every fourth person in Germany now works in precarious type employment while 800,000 supplement their salaries with state aid to make ends meet. A total of 5.3 million are currently dependent on miserly Hartz IV payments.

The planned Citizen’s Income will do nothing to change this situation. Despite inflation, the energy crisis and exploding food prices, the standard rate for recipients will increase by only 10 percent compared to Hartz IV, i.e., an average increase of €50 per person per month. This means that recipients will be barely able to afford basic necessities.

Food prices alone in Germany have risen by 20 percent in the last 12 months. According to the Consumer Advice Centre, the increase was 55 percent for butter, 57 percent for curd cheese, 43 percent for milk and 38 percent for flour. The price of a loaf of bread hovers around €4 and pasta, popular with children, costs 33 percent more than a year ago.

The planned basic benefit for the different groups is as follows: Single persons and single parents are to receive €502 per month instead of the current €449, i.e., €53 more. Couples or joint households will receive €451 per partner, an increase of €50. Adults in care facilities as well and those under 25 who still live in their parents’ household and are not gainfully employed are to be entitled to €402 euros—an increase of €45 compared to the Hartz IV standard rate.

For young people between 14 and 17, an increase of €47 to €420 is planned, for 6- to 13-year-olds by €39 to €348 and by €35 to €318 for small children.

These rates are far below the levels demanded by social associations and will only serve to increase poverty levels. Child poverty will also be exacerbated considerably. The current completely inadequate benefit rates prevent children and young people from being properly provided for. In 2021, child poverty in Germany reached 20.8 percent, i.e., every fifth child grows up in poverty.

As the Consumer Advice Centre emphasises, even the future citizen’s income is not sufficient for “a healthy diet.” Three quarters of the more than 2 million people who depend on regular food support from food banks receive Hartz IV benefits.

In order to be able to “lead a life in dignity,” an adult living alone needs a basic allowance of €725 as well as the payment of electricity costs, according to the welfare group Paritätische Wohlfahrtsverband.

The parties of the federal coalition and the opposition CDU/CSU all essentially agree, however, on the miserly benefit rates, which will lead to even more severe poverty-related malnutrition and stigmatisation for the 5.33 million adults and children affected (as of October 2022, according to the Federal Employment Agency).

Two points in particular remain controversial: The introduction of a two-year “waiting period,” during which those receiving citizen’s income do not have to move to a smaller flat and are allowed to retain “assets” of up to €60,000 (plus another €30,000 per household member). And, secondly, a six-month “trust period” during which regulations imposed on welfare recipients by the employment offices are eased somewhat, meaning the unemployed do not have to take the first job they are offered.

The CDU and CSU are shamelessly stirring up a debate based on social discrimination. Together with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), the two parties rail against the allegedly planned “social cushion” for the unemployed and migrant workers.

CDU leader Friedrich Merz, who already hit the headlines in September with his anti-refugee “social tourism” agitation, is using the Citizen’s Income issue to once again spread the slogans of the AfD. According to Merz, the proposed Citizen’s Income often makes it “no longer worthwhile even for immigrants to take up a simple job.' He is whipping up xenophobia with the claim: “And that's what really attracts people from many countries.”

The government is clearly trying to defuse potentially explosive protests with its talk of a “waiting period” and “trust period.” Affordable housing is simply no longer limited to big cities such as Munich, Frankfurt or Berlin, and the savings in the government bill will mainly benefit the SPD’s wealthier clientele—the self-employed and small entrepreneurs—who are experiencing economic hardship due to the current crisis. Barely any other unemployed persons who have to apply for Hartz IV have at the same time €60,000 in their bank account.

The hostility of the coalition government towards low earners, minimum wage earners and precarious jobbers was spelled out in a speech given by Martin Rosemann, the SPD spokesperson for labour and social affairs in the Bundestag. He defended the “waiting period” on the grounds that it makes the difference “between those who have always worked and saved something and those who have not.”

The conservatives are attacking the 'trust period” in particular. They claim that the relaxation of sanctions in the first six months of unemployment undermines the very purpose of Hartz IV, which is to force as many people as possible into precarious employment. The “proven” and “balanced” principle of “promoting and demanding” would be discarded and the planned citizen's income would open the way towards an “unconditional basic income.”

On his Twitter account CDU leader Merz rants: “The so-called #Citizens Income is the path to an unconditional #basic income drawn from tax revenues. It's unfair that working people finance those who could work but don't get all the state incentives to take a job.” Soon, “There won’t be many left in society who can’t fall back on some social transfer system” and thus become unwilling to work, Merz stated.

Merz knows what he is talking about. He is an expert on “social transfer systems”— but in reverse. Before he took over the chairmanship of the CDU, he headed the supervisory board of the German branch of BlackRock, which manages assets of US$6.4 trillion worldwide. The company ensures that billions flow into the accounts of the super-rich every year without them having to lift a finger. The billions are then squeezed out of the working class through low wages.

The CSU leader and Bavarian premier, Markus Söder, also polarised his tweet: “The #Citizens Income disadvantages low income groups who work hard: Cashiers, hairdressers, bus drivers, police chiefs—who find out eventually that not working is nearly as lucrative as working.”

Shortly afterwards the same Söder posed cynically before the media at the table of a Munich food bank and thanked the food banks for their “outstanding performance” and “great voluntary commitment” in supporting the needy. Everybody knows that it is starvation wages in the low-wage sector and miserly benefit rates for the unemployed that drive people desperately to seek charity food.

The SPD, Greens and FDP, along with CDU, CSU, AfD and Left Party, know the Citizen’s Income provides too little to live on and just enough to stay alive. They all indignantly reject the claim they are paving the way for an unconditional basic income. Federal Labour Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) affirmed at the Bundesrat meeting November 14 that he rules out an unconditional basic income just like the CDU and CSU.

The notorious Hartz IV principle of “promoting while making demands”—the sanction system hated by broad sections of the population, which forces Hartz IV recipients to accept any low-wage job, no matter how bad—is praised by both the government parties and the CDU/CSU opposition as a “proven” means of “getting people into work.”

All the parties agree that nothing should change. The government argues that many who accept the first available job due to the pressure of sanctions return to Hartz IV benefits after a short time, although urgently needed job vacancies remain unfilled. Nevertheless, the CDU/CSU and the AfD reject any relaxation of sanctions.

“We have 2.4 million unemployed and a growing number of vacancies. The state must send a signal: We need you in the labour market,” Merz demanded on Twitter and ranted in Berlin at the industry day of the Dehoga restaurant association: “Do we really need to expand a transfer system even further and give even more incentives not to return to the labour market so quickly?”

On Monday, Federal Labour Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD), who touts the draft law as a “chance for a self-determined life” for jobseekers, assured the CDU/CSU parties of his willingness to compromise in the plenary session of the Bundesrat. “My hand [is] outstretched for a solution,” he declared on behalf of the ruling coalition. On Tuesday, Heil announced a “compromise” with the CDU/CSU, completely scratching the “trust period” without sanctions.

German states abolish isolation requirements for coronavirus patients

Tamino Dreisam


On Wednesday, the state governments of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria abolished the isolation requirement for those infected with the coronavirus. The state of Schleswig-Holstein followed suit on Thursday. The state of Hesse plans to do the same in the coming weeks.

The abolition of the isolation requirement is a political crime that gives free rein to the coronavirus. Millions of people will be infected with the virus and suffer long-term consequences as a result of this decision. A significant number will become seriously ill, end up in hospital or even die.

The end of the isolation requirement is not just a further relaxation of the rules, but essentially means the end of all protective measures against the coronavirus and the complete adoption of the right-wing 'herd immunity' policy—that is, the deliberate and permanent mass infection of the population. This policy is justified with the argument that the coronavirus is ultimately nothing more than a flu.

This argument can only be described as criminal. Worldwide, more than 20 million people have already died as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. In Germany, more than 1,000 people still die every week from COVID-19—more than twice as many as during the most severe flu wave in 2017/18.

Moreover COVID-19 is caused by a virus that can attack almost every organ of the body, even in a seemingly harmless case. Between 10 and 30 percent of those infected develop Long COVID, which is not yet considered curable. The symptoms, ranging from fatigue to accelerated heart rate, all have a profound impact on the quality of life of those affected.

Recent studies show that multiple COVID-19 infections, which will inevitably occur as a result of this policy of mass infection, significantly increase the risk of Long COVID and a fatal outcome, as well as reduce life expectancy.

If left to spread unchecked, the coronavirus is capable of mutating in short time periods, bypassing vaccine protection. This is shown by the spread of the BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants, which officially already account for 12 percent of infections taking place in Germany. The two subvariants have such a high immune escape that vaccinations and antibodies from previous infections or immunizations have only a weak or even no effect against them.

A packed BVG bus in Berlin, Germany. [Photo: WSWS]

Treating the coronavirus like the flu means consciously accepting mass mortality and extensive damage to the health of the population. Nevertheless, other German states are already planning to follow the example of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Schleswig-Holstein.

The Hessian state government plans to lift the isolation requirement in the near future. State Health Minister Kai Klose (Green Party) cynically described the protective measure as a 'comparatively severe health intervention.'

Berlin does not rule out the repeal of isolation requirements after the current coronavirus regulation expires on December 21. Thus, Health Senator Ulrike Gote (Green Party) stated that there are 'good arguments that infected people without symptoms do not necessarily have to go into isolation.' The coalition government (Christian Democrats, CDU; Social Democrats, SPD; and Greens) of the state government of Saxony and the coalition led by the Left Party (along with SPD and Greens) in the state of Thuringia made similar statements. All three states are pushing for a unified approach by all federal states.

With the end of the isolation requirement for infected individuals, all other remaining preventative measures are to be dropped. Schleswig-Holstein plans to phase out the mandatory mask requirement on buses and trains at the end of the year and is appealing to the other state governments to do the same. Bavaria has already signaled its approval. For example, Minister President Markus Söder (Christian Social Union, CSU, the Bavarian sister party of the CDU) said, 'It is hard to understand why there is a mask requirement on trains but not on planes.'

At the federal level, the health policy spokesman for the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) parliamentary group, Andrew Ullmann, echoed the proposal, pleading for a 'mask recommendation instead of a mask requirement.'

Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) has criticized the relaxation of coronavirus regulations in recent days, but his criticism is as cynical as it is mendacious. He helped draft the Infection Protection Act, which already repealed a large part of the measures in August and gave the state governments the opportunity to prepare even more far-reaching abolition of protective measures.

Especially on the issue of quarantine, Lauterbach's role as 'chief infector' has been evident. In early April, he himself proposed lifting the quarantine requirement. He ultimately back-peddled due to massive public backlash. Nevertheless, on April 28, the federal and state governments—with Lauterbach's support—reduced the isolation period to five days.

The figures available make it clear that the pandemic is still running rampant. Each week, about 7500 people are hospitalized nationwide in Germany and more than 1000 people die. There were 86 outbreaks and 24 deaths in medical treatment facilities just last week, according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the responsible government health agency. In nursing homes and homes for the elderly there occurred 296 outbreaks and 135 deaths.

Clinics are expected to be overloaded and perhaps collapse entirely in the winter due to increased hospitalizations, staff absences due to infections and energy shortages as a result of the economic war against Russia. In the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, for example, the chairman of the Hospital Working Group warned last week: 'Shortage of specialists, competing legislation at federal and state level and, last but not least, the coronavirus pandemic and the energy crisis will not make it any easier for hospitals to fulfill their care mandate in the coming year.'

The spread of the BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 variants—also known as 'Cerberus' (hellhound)—will only exacerbate this situation. BQ.1 currently accounts for four percent of infections and BQ1.1 for more than eight percent (four percent the previous week). However, since these values are transmitted to the RKI with a delay of several weeks, it can be assumed that they already account for a much higher proportion of infections in Germany.

Workers and young people must understand the lifting of the isolation requirement in this context as a deadly warning: Having already accepted tens of millions of pandemic victims worldwide—including more than 156,000 in Germany—the ruling class now wants to extend the suffering and death caused by the virus in perpetuity.

Videos appear to document execution of Russian POWs by Ukrainian armed forces

Jason Melanovski


The New York Times has verified the authenticity of videos apparently showing the execution of 11 surrendering Russian soldiers in the village of Makeyevka, Luhansk, in Eastern Ukraine earlier this month.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, right, in Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, Nov. 19, 2022. [AP Photo/Ukrainian Presidential Press Office]

One video was filmed by an unnamed Ukrainian soldier on his cell phone, while other footage comes from drone videos that were most likely filmed by Ukrainian forces surveilling the offensive. The Times compared the videos to satellite imagery, confirming that they had been filmed at a farmhouse in the village.

One of the videos first circulated on pro-Ukrainian social media channels last week. In the video, Russian soldiers can be seen clearly in the process of surrendering to Ukrainian forces when one Russian soldier appears from the background and opens fire. The Ukrainian forces seem to return fire.

The video cuts and the same Russian soldiers are shown lying dead on the ground, most of them positioned as they were when they surrendered, apparently executed at point blank range in the back of the head. The Russian soldier who had opened fire appears to also have been killed on the spot and is lying in the position from where he opened fire. 

Commenting on the videos, Dr. Rohini Haar, medical adviser at Physicians for Human Rights, told the New York Times, “It looks like most of them were shot in the head. There are pools of blood. That indicates that they were just left there dead. There appears to have been no effort to pick them up or help them.”

Dr. Haar added that because the Russian soldiers had been lying down, apparently unarmed, with their arms outstretched or behind their heads, “They’re considered hors de combat, or noncombatants—effectively prisoners of war.”

Russia has denounced the killings as “deliberate and methodological murder.”

As the Times article admits, the Ukrainian soldiers could be prosecuted for the extrajudicial killing of Russian POWs under the laws of international armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the International Criminal Court. According to the Geneva Conventions, POWs “must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. ... Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”

Similarly, the Rome Statute says that “Killing or wounding a combatant, who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion” constitutes a violation of international armed conflict. 

The fact that the video first appeared on pro-Ukrainian social media channels suggests that Kiev was already aware of the extrajudicial execution and leaked the video as part of a PR campaign to blame the sole Russian soldier firing upon Ukrainian troops for the death of all 11 soldiers. As even the Times admitted, “Ukrainian news and social media channels ... used them to laud the military prowess of their armed forces and publicize their heroic retaking of territory lost to Russia early in the war.”

In response to widespread criticism of the conduct of the Ukrainian soldiers, the Ukrainian government has pleaded ignorance and promised an investigation, which it knows full well will have no impact on the support it receives from its imperialist backers. Speaking at a security forum in Canada, Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, stated, “Of course Ukrainian authorities will investigate this video,” but added that it “is very unlikely” the video accurately depicted the execution of Russian POWs.

Despite Stefanishyna’s assurances that Ukraine does not engage in the killing of POWs, in March another video circulated widely on social media showing Ukrainian forces shooting captured Russian soldiers in the legs at point blank range. During the initial weeks of the war, official social media accounts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine also regularly posted gory photos of dead Russian soldiers. Such behavior is clearly encouraged within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which includes neo-fascist organizations such as the Azov Regiment and the Right Sector.

That the Ukrainian media were so quick to celebrate the killing of Russian POWs suggests the widespread release of the video is a deliberate provocation by Kiev to continue the war amid reports of pressure from Washington D.C. to reopen negotiations with Moscow as winter approaches. So far, the Zelensky government has refused to take any steps to initiate negotiations and even passed a law forbidding negotiations for as long as Vladimir Putin remains president.

The release of the video has had the predictable effect of angering pro-war nationalist elements within Russia, who have been pushing Moscow to widen its reactionary and disastrous war in Ukraine despite immense losses. As the Times reported, Vladlen Tatarsky, a popular Russian military blogger, said in a post on Telegram that every Russian “must watch this several times to understand whom we are fighting against” and that “not a single Russian can live and sleep calmly ... as long as the perpetrators are alive.”

While recent Ukrainian military successes—the retaking of large parts of Kharkov and Kherson provinces—have been celebrated both in Ukrainian and the western imperialist media, the war is, by any standard, a historical disaster for the population of both countries. Last week, General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that over 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or injured and “probably” an equivalent number of Ukrainian soldiers have been as well, putting the total casualty number in the ongoing war at over 200,000.