London Mayor declares “major incident” as UK capital devastated by COVId-19

Thomas Scripps

London is suffering an unprecedented medical catastrophe. Last Saturday, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan declared a “major incident” in the capital.

Khan said in a statement, “The situation in London is now critical with the spread of the virus out of control… our hospitals are at risk of being overwhelmed. The stark reality is that we will run out of beds for patients in the next couple of weeks unless the spread of the virus slows down drastically.”

In an interview with Sky News, he described the situation as “like a theatre of war.”

Virus Outbreak Britain

Khan’s announcement is an admission that the Conservative government’s “herd immunity” policy, which he has helped enforce, has brought the health service to the point of collapse in a city of almost nine million people.

Fifteen of London’s 32 boroughs are recording infection rates of more than 1,000 cases per 100,000 people, up to 1,569 in Barking and Dagenham—according to the latest figures for the week to January 6. The average figure for London is 1,052. Twenty-four boroughs recorded week-on-week increases in the rate of infection.

Official testing figures only scratch the surface. The Office for National Statistics estimates that one in 30 people are infected with the virus in London, up to one in 20 in the worst-hit areas.

These numbers are putting unsustainable pressure on health services. The London Ambulance Service is dealing with 8,000 calls a day, compared with 5,000 on a normal busy day, meaning people in need of emergency help are sometimes having to wait hours before paramedics arrive. More than 100 firefighters have been drafted in to drive ambulances.

Roughly 800 patients a week have to wait in the ambulance for more than an hour when they get to hospital because staff are too busy to admit them.

Roughly 40 percent of patients in London are ill with Covid-19. As of last week, six of London’s 18 acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts had unoccupied beds in the single figures. Several had no intensive care beds spare at all. Sixteen out of 21 London trusts had breached their “safety threshold”, with bed occupancy levels over 92 percent. Two of these were 100 percent full.

More than 800 coronavirus cases a day are currently being admitted to the city’s hospitals. Close to 1,000 were admitted to intensive care in the last fortnight. These numbers will increase over the next weeks as the surging case numbers of the last few days produce more hospitalisations.

Last week, the Health Service Journal reported a dire warning given by NHS England London medical director Vin Diwakar in a briefing with the city’s hospital trusts. He warned that in the “best case” scenario, London’s hospitals would be short 1,500 beds by January 19. They would be 2,900 short in the average case and 4,400 in the “worse” case. Speaking at the Downing Street press conference Tuesday Dr Diwakar said that the NHS Nightingale Hospital is now open to treat non-Covid patients but warned more patients may need to be treated outside the capital if rates continue to rise.

Besides beds, there are also severe shortages of staff. ICU nurses in major hospitals are being required to look after three patients at a time, rather than the normal one-to-one care.

Dr Zudin Puthucheary, a council member of the Intensive Care Society who works at Royal London Hospital, told Sky News Saturday, “There are more patients than we have ever had, and we have less staff than we have ever had.

“We've cannibalised staff from all around the hospital—volunteers are pouring in to try and look after these patients and deliver the best care we can. Staff are breaking themselves to make this happen and keep our patients safe—and it's not going to be enough.”

He warned, “The NHS is breaking in front of us and there is no plan to stop it breaking.”

Nearly 1,000 people succumbed to the virus in London hospitals last week, taking the total for the city to 9,815 or one eighth of the UK’s officially registered Covid-19 death toll. More deaths and long-term health complications will be caused by the forced cancellations of other treatments, including urgent cancer surgeries at multiple hospitals.

Khan’s announcement of a major incident and calls for more government support cover up his own criminal role in allowing this situation to develop.

When Prime Minister Boris Johnson ended the one-month November lockdown to save the Christmas profits of the shops and corporations, Khan said in a December 3 statement, “The end of national lockdown will undoubtedly be a major boost for London’s struggling shops and hospitality venues which were forced to close just as preparations for the Christmas period began. At this crucial time of the year I’m urging all Londoners to safely show their support for London’s high streets as we all make our decisions about where to shop this Christmas.”

This was under conditions in which London’s case numbers had stopped falling during the latter part of the lockdown, holding at around 155 per 100,000, and then beginning to increase. Experts were warning that London should be placed under tougher restrictions.

On December 5, Khan went to Oxford Street to encourage people to go shopping in “this golden month and this golden quarter”. That week, the infection rate increased to 192. A week later it was 325 and a week later, in the seven days up to December 18, it was 602. London was only placed under enhanced but entirely inadequate “Tier 4” restrictions December 20. In the week to December 30, the rate was 814 per 100,000 and it now stands at over 1,000.

Khan also worked closely with Transport for London and the private London bus operators to conceal information about Covid-19 infections and keep workers on the job in unsafe conditions.

The declaration of a major incident has serious implications. The BBC’s home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani explains, “In general terms,” declaring a major incident, “means public bodies can legally stop delivering some everyday services, so that their personnel, attention and resources can be diverted to the emergency confronting them.”

Dr Puthucheary warned in his interview with Sky News that this could mean hospitals having their decision-making power taken away from them. “I’m scared because we are reaching a point where someone might tell us we can't prioritise our patients above everything else—those decisions are going to be taken away from us and none of us have ever lived through that.”

Casciani noted, “At other times, the plans will lead to the military sending soldiers to aid the civilian effort…”

Essex, a county bordering London, specifically requested such a deployment two weeks ago, after declaring a major incident. Sir Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, said that local politicians were “submitting a request for military assistance to the civil authority, a MACA request to assist with the construction of community hospitals, additional hospital capacity and supported by the armed forces and party staffed by the armed forces.

“They would also like armed forces help with the roll-out of the vaccine to accelerate that in Essex and to assist with testing in schools.”

Throughout the pandemic, the military has increasingly been brought forward to plug the gaps in essential and local services left by years of austerity and privatisation. 20,000 soldiers were reportedly placed on standby in March, of which 5,000 are currently deployed in what the Ministry of Defence (MoD) calls “the biggest peacetime operation ever.” The MoD adds that “[t]housands more are supporting efforts through their day jobs in military planning, Defence Medical Services, Defence Science and Technology Laboratories and elsewhere.”

But while they are currently dealing with the medical elements of the crisis, the army’s fundamental role is to defend the capitalist state against popular opposition. In July, a sub-committee of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) warned of “grave challenges to public order” which were “likely to require military support.” It noted that “[t]ensions resulting from the pandemic and lockdown have become inextricably bound with structural inequalities and international events.”

As mass opposition develops, including strikes and protests, against the consequences of the government’s murderous policies, the current military deployments will assume an openly repressive character.

The declaration of a major incident in the capital is a warning to the working class across Britain that they must take the response to the pandemic out of the hands of Johnson and his collaborators. The ruling class has no answer to this crisis outside of mass death and violent repression.

Bangladesh pandemic cases surpass half a million, with over 7,810 deaths

Wimal Perera

Officially, COVID-19 pandemic cases in Bangladesh stand at over 524,000 and deaths at more than 7,810, as medical experts criticise the callous disregard of Prime Minister Sheik Hasina’s government over its handling of the health emergency.

Nine months have already passed since the first COVID-19 related cases and deaths were reported: three cases on March 8 last year and on March 18, the first death.

The government’s under-estimation of the extent of the crisis was exposed after its figures were compared with those in other countries, which adopted the criminal “herd immunity” policy allowing the virus to run unchecked.

COVID-19 pandemic relief services in Chandpur, Bangladesh [Source: Flickr]

When India surpassed 500,000 cases, and recorded over 15,000 deaths, it had conducted 0.14 tests per thousand people; when the US, the worst hit country in the world, was about to surpass 500,000 cases, recording over 18,000 deaths, it had conducted 0.50 tests per thousand people. Yet, Bangladesh has performed only 0.09 tests per thousand people—one of the lowest in the world, according to data on December 2, the day the number of cases reached the half million mark.

The Bangladesh Peace Observatory, under the Centre for Genocide Studies at Dhaka University, reports that it counted a total of 2,205 deaths of those with virus symptoms between March 22 and November 28, in addition to other figures from state authorities. It prepared the reports based on information from 25 media outlets.

As of January 8, a total of 3.33 million tests have been carried out in Bangladesh. Last week, the country’s health ministry reported just over 13,600 tests, which was a decline from the maximum of 19,000 on December 15. The decrease in the number of tests has taken place as medical experts insist that at least 50,000 tests should be carried out daily.

On January 6, Hasina addressed the nation on the second anniversary of her Awami League government. She pompously declared, “The infection rate and death toll in Bangladesh are still quite low. We are trying our best to keep the pandemic under control and have promised to bring the vaccines to Bangladesh swiftly.”

She prayed for those who have lost their lives during the pandemic and thanked the frontline workers, including the doctors, health workers, the armed forces and field-level workers for battling the pandemic courageously.

However, contrary to the advice provided by medical experts at the beginning of the outbreak of the virus, the government tacitly approved the policy of herd immunity. Hasina has downplayed the pandemic, previously commenting that it was “not that deadly.”

Medical and infectious disease specialist Professor Ridwanur Rahman commented that “the government’s strategy against COVID-19 has been suicidal” from the beginning. “From screening at the ports, and quarantine, to testing and contact tracing—all were being carried out in name only,” he said.

Serious shortages of personal protective equipment and the provision of substandard equipment have seen hundreds of healthcare workers, including 112 doctors, die as of December 28.

In June, Bangladesh imposed a fee for all COVID-19 tests and treatment, declaring that it wanted to discourage unnecessary tests. According to the official announcement, people have to pay 200 takas (about $US2.35) if they provided their samples at collection booths. Payment of 500 takas is required if samples are collected from homes.

The government has imposed this burden on ordinary working people, as the vast majority has no access to even the limited state-run healthcare facilities.

In October, the Business Standard, published December 14, cited research carried out by the Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) based in Dhaka. Interviews were conducted with 1,200 households, consisting of those urban poor on benefits provided by the state health card system, and offered to poor families.

According to its report, only 9 percent of households had health cards, while 32 percent said that they were completely unaware of the health-card system.

An article last week in Daily Star on social inequality in Bangladesh, authored by six out of the top 10 poorest districts of Bangladesh had no pandemic testing centre.

Shahidul Mondol, a 40-year-old rickshaw-puller living in Dhaka with his family, had to send his family members back to his farming village in Bogura, about 190 km from Dhaka, because of lost earnings due to the pandemic.

He told the Business Standard, “Whenever someone in my family falls sick, I go to a local pharmacy to obtain medicine. If you visit doctors, you have to unnecessarily pay for the tests. I do not have the money for that.”

In her January 6 speech, Hasina also boasted about providing 1.2 trillion takas, or 4.3 percent of gross domestic product, as a stimulus package. She claimed that the package was to benefit the poor. However, it actually benefits big business while poverty deepens around the country.

Even before the pandemic, the year 2019 saw the urban and rural poor experience “food insecurity.” A survey, conducted during December last year by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, found that “around 12 percent of poor urban households had no food in their home and over 21 percent of households could not access the food that they wanted,” New Age reported.

The education of children in poor families has been disrupted, while well-off families have the advantage of accessing available online resources, along with government educational programs.

Educational institutions were closed in March with the lockdown. The media reported that various studies and researchers found that “ad hoc government measures to facilitate the education of students at home, through TV and radio broadcasts and online classes, were unable to reach an estimated 9 million students.

This underscores the hypocrisy of Hasina, who once said, “We want to free the country from poverty. It is impossible to make a country poverty-free without education.”

Tens of thousands of garment and informal sector workers have lost their jobs, while other workers have been employed under “new normal” conditions without any facilities for adequate protection.

Attempting to capitalise on the situation to implement pay cuts, the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters’ Association—a major body of garment owners—has requested that the labour ministry suspends the legal provision for a 5 percent annual increment for garment workers.

According to a recent Transparency International Bangladesh report, about 1.4 million workers out of the 4 million in the garment and other export-oriented industries, have not received any share of the stimulus package, despite the government’s pledge. Between 65,000 and 100,000 workers became jobless, or retrenched without benefits.

This is despite the fact that the government has already provided the garment sector with $7.4 billion in financial support.

Staggering growth of super-rich in China

Fu Hong

According to Forbes’ Rich List of China in 2020, the total wealth of the 400 richest people in China soared from $1.29 trillion to $2.11 trillion last year—an increase overall of more than 60 percent. For those who made it to the list, almost two thirds saw an increase in their wealth. The entry criterion for last year’s Rich List was $1.55 billion, compared to the $1 billion threshold in 2019. Much of this was due to the rise and rise of share prices.

Nongfu Spring, which was publicly listed in last September in Hong Kong, had a 120 percent increase in its stocks by December 17. Zhong Shanshan, the company’s founder, whose wealth rocketed from $2 billion to $69 billion, replaced Jack Ma as the richest person in China. Jack Ma only saw his wealth rise by 72 percent to reach $65.6 billion! In China’s bottled water market, Nongfu Spring now occupies all market shelves and vending machines. With its control of some of the best natural water resources in China and an aggressive marketing strategy, the company has left its rivals far behind. Its profit on each bottle sold is a huge 60 percent.

Midea Group, the leading electrical appliance manufacturer in China, has also had a continuous rise in its stocks—from 56 RMB [$US8.65] at the beginning of the year to 95 RMB or an increase of nearly 70 percent. In 2016, the company bought and merged with the home appliance sector of Toshiba and an industrial robot manufacturer called KUKA, diversifying its products. Midea Group is the first Chinese home appliance company to make it into the Fortune Global 500. Its founder, He Hengjian, has continued to hold fifth place on China’s rich list.

Jack Ma [Wikimedia/World Economic Forum/Claran McCrickard; Ma Juateng [Wikimedia]; Zhong Shanshan [Nongfu Spring]

The restrictions on in-person activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the rise of online e-commerce platforms. The share price of Pinduoduo, for example, shot up from $38 to $160. The company, which provides the means for purchasers to form or join “teams” of buyers to drive down prices, has quickly become the second largest e-commerce platform in China, ranking only after Taobao.

E-commerce is closely connected with the package delivery industry. As a result, the leading delivery company in China, SF Express, saw a rise in their stock prices as well, going from 37 RMB to 90 RMB. Huang Zheng, founder of Pinduoduo, and Wang Wei, founder of SF Express, both remain in the top ten of China’s rich list.

In China, Alibaba and Tencent have long become the oligarchs of China’s IT industry and their shares have continued to rise this year as well. However, very recently, Alibaba, Tencent, and SF Express were fined 500,000 RMB each by anti-monopoly agencies, or about $77,000, which amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist for these mega-corporations. Whatever the exact reasons behind the fines, these companies and their owners have retained their enormous wealth, as well as political clout.

Some of China’s wealthiest capitalist entrepreneurs are members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), have been delegates to the National People’s Congress, or are members of the associated People's Political Consultative Conference.

To cite just a few of the most glaring examples: Jack Ma is a CCP member; Wang Jianlin (founder of the Wanda Group) is a party member, a National People’s Congress delegate, and a member of the People’s Political Consultative Conference; Xu Jiayin (chairman of the Evergrande Group) is a member of the CCP and the People’s Political Consultative Conference; Lei Jun (founder of Xiaomi) is a National People’s Congress delegate; Pony Ma is a National People’s Congress delegate; Tomson Dongsheng Li (chairman of TCL) is a CCP member and a National People’s Congress delegate.

On December 6, during a CCP meeting on economic work, the state made token changes to its anti-monopoly drive supposedly to prevent the economic domination of a super-rich few. In reality that has already taken place with most industries dominated by one or a few oligarchs.

In an interview, Zhou Hongyi, founder of Qihoo 360 (an internet security company), explained that whenever a start-up company put out a new product, the existing monopolies moved to develop a similar one and crush the emergence of any rival. Any new IT development will be associated with the same last name—Ma. In other words, either it will belong to Alibaba of Jack Ma or to Tencent of Pony Ma.

While the billionaire oligarchs accumulated staggering wealth last year, working people have borne the brunt of the country’s economic downturn—with millions losing their jobs in the first half of last year. A further indication of deteriorating living standards is a sharp decline in retail sales. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, from January to November this year, total sales in the retail industry dropped by 4.8 percent nominally, and 7.3 percent in fact as a result of growing unemployment and attacks on wages.

The wealth of the super-rich is directly related to the super-exploitation of the working class. The rapid development of e-commerce depends on the express delivery industry in China which in turn relies on cheap labour. The workers receive low pay depending on hours worked and are often not paid at all.

The CCP’s propaganda continues to boast that absolute poverty has all but been eradicated in China, but its figures are based on a very low bar for absolute poverty—an annual income less than 2,300 RMB, or $US352. Poverty is in fact very widespread as was, in effect, acknowledged by Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang, who last May pointed out that 600 million people in China have a monthly income below 1,000 RMB [$US155].

To eradicate poverty, there is no way out other than socializing the means of production. As long as production is subjugated to the profit-making of capitalists, as long as consumption is subjugated to the wages handed out by capitalists, this social system can never promise a life free of want to everyone. End the private ownership of the means of production! End the regime that defends this private ownership!

Growing threats of fascist violence as Democrats appeal for “unity” and “healing”

Eric London

One week before Inauguration Day, there are growing threats of further far-right fascistic violence, even as the military-intelligence agencies and Republican Party are withholding critical information from the public regarding the January 6 coup attempt.

There is an extreme level of instability and conflict within the state apparatus itself. Yesterday afternoon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a military-wide memo stating that the position of the military was that Biden had been elected. This remarkable memo, which is without precedent in American history, indicates that the military brass is unsure it will be able to control its own forces.

The memo states that members of the military must “support and defend the Constitution. Any act to disrupt the Constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values and oath; it is against the law.” Last year, a military survey found that one third of military members had personally witnessed fascist activity within the armed forces.

Members of the National Guard stand inside anti-scaling fencing that surrounds the Capitol, Sunday, Jan. 10, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alan Fram)

Politico reported that Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow spoke to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy over the weekend about the loyalty of the 20,000 National Guard soldiers being deployed to Washington D.C. for the inauguration “to ensure that deployed members are not sympathetic to domestic terrorists.” The prospect of pro-Trump demonstrations in various state capitols, however, means it may not be possible to vet all units deployed across the country.

The threat against elected officials is also growing. Congressional Democrats revealed that intelligence officials briefed them Monday night about a right-wing plot to carry out mass violence if Vice President Pence and the cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment, as well as to disrupt the inauguration on January 20.

Democratic Congressman Conor Lamb told CNN:

They were talking about 4,000 armed 'patriots' to surround the Capitol and prevent any Democrat from going in. They have published rules of engagement, meaning when you shoot and when you don't. So this is an organized group that has a plan.

According to a Huffington Post report, security officials also told call attendees that there was a “need to put every member of Congress through a metal detector before the inauguration.” One congressperson told the Huffington Post that this triggered an “eyes wide-open realization” that security officials felt “all these members who were in league with the insurrectionists who love to carry their guns” posed a threat against the lives of Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and congressional Democrats.

Despite these threats, the FBI and Justice Department gave a defensive press conference yesterday afternoon in which officials downplayed prior awareness of January 6, saying this was the product of public “misperceptions.” Leading FBI and Justice Department officials snubbed the press conference, leaving it to lower-ranking subordinates. FBI Director Christopher Wray has not appeared in public since last Wednesday’s riot.

A Washington Post article yesterday revealed that the FBI was well aware in advance of the extraordinary danger posed by fascist plans to rally at the Capitol but refused to act. The article, titled, “FBI report warned of ‘war’ at the Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence,” quotes a report from the agency’s Norfolk, Virginia office warning of “specific calls for violence.”

NBC News also reported yesterday that 50 armed personnel from the Department of Homeland Security were loitering 13 blocks away from the Capitol as the far-right mob overran the chambers, but they failed to deploy. Acting Director of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf resigned Monday without warning, leaving the relatively unknown FEMA administrator Pete Gaynor in charge of the department.

Yesterday, Donald Trump delivered what can only be construed as threats of violence against his political opponents. Speaking to reporters from the White House before leaving for a rally in Texas, Trump called his speech on Wednesday instigating the coup attempt “totally appropriate” and warned that Wednesday’s planned impeachment vote was “causing tremendous danger to our country and tremendous anger.” Like a mobster addressing his victim, he added, “I want no violence.”

In Texas, Trump spoke several yards from the militarized US-Mexico border wall on a platform draped with combat camouflage netting. He said “the 25th Amendment is of zero risk to me, but will come back to haunt Joe Biden and the Biden administration. Be careful what you wish for.”

At the same time, Trump, with an eye to his position if he is not in office after Inauguration Day, echoed calls from other Republicans for “healing.” He denounced moves in Congress to impeach him, saying, “Now is the time for our nation to heal.”

The call for “healing” and “peace and calm” parallels statements by Democratic Party officials, led by Biden. Biden has asked Congress to deprioritize any impeachment hearings—and by implication any investigation into the events of January 6—so his administration can fill national security cabinet positions and right the ship of American imperialist foreign policy.

The New York Times reported yesterday that the “transition team hopes to persuade Senate Republicans to help him quickly confirm his top national security nominees with the goal of having them confirmed on Inauguration Day, next Wednesday.”

Citing an interview yesterday with incoming Biden press secretary Jan Psaki, the Washington Post reported that “Biden and his advisers have held firm to his belief that the country’s partisan nerves will eventually calm. Those around him say he remains unconcerned that a majority of House Republicans tried to overturn the election results last week even after the attack on the Capitol.”

The Post cited the comments of Hilary Rosen, head of a consulting firm with close ties to Biden, stating that Biden is appointing officials to jobs in his administration who “take the Biden commitment of healing much more seriously.”

Biden has consistently opposed any broader investigation into the forces behind the January 6 coup, including top Republicans who provided Trump with the political cover through their legitimization of the lie that the election was stolen. Last week, he insisted on the need for a “strong” Republican Party and rejected calls for the resignation of top Trump supporters like Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley.

These statements are a warning that the warring sections of the ruling class are preparing to work out a compromise that will integrate even further the extreme right into the fold of the American political establishment.

After all, the forces who mobilized to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer were promoted by powerful forces within the ruling class who opposed any coronavirus-related restrictions on corporate production and profit. This “back to work” movement had bipartisan support.

If an agreement is arranged, it would be met with unanimous praise in the corporate political-media establishment, whose aim is to maintain record corporate profits and force workers back to work in the midst of the pandemic. This basic dynamic shows that it is the working class which is the target of this process.

In the absence of the independent intervention of the working class on a socialist program, such an arrangement can only prepare for even greater crimes. In its January 12 statement, “Mobilize the working class against Trump’s conspiracy! Prepare for a political general strike!,” the Socialist Equality Party wrote:

The working class must respond with a general strike to attempts by ultra-right mobs, instigated by the political criminal Donald Trump and his Republican Party accomplices in the Senate and Congress, to threaten the lives of elected representatives and seize government buildings and other strategic sites, whether in Washington D.C. or in state capitals throughout the country.

Events have confirmed the urgency of this call. The independent intervention of workers must be combined with the demand for a full and open investigation into all aspects of the coup of January 6, 2021 and the ongoing incitement of fascist violence.

Global COVID-19 death toll nears 2 million

Benjamin Mateus

It was just one year ago, on January 11, 2020, when the first death attributable to COVID-19 was confirmed in a 61-year-old Chinese man known to have frequented the seafood market in Wuhan. He had several medical conditions, such as chronic liver disease, and died from heart failure and pneumonia. It is now well understood older age and various health conditions can exacerbate COVID-19 infections.

It was also exactly one year ago when the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that the genomic sequence for the novel coronavirus had been posted in the National Institute of Health’s genetic sequence bank, also known as GenBank.

One year later, close to two million deaths have been reported. To be exact, the Worldometer coronavirus pandemic dashboard has the figure at 1,968,622, as of this writing. The present seven-day moving average stands at 12,941 deaths each day. It has remained over 10,000 deaths per day since November 23, as the winter surge that has swept across most of Europe and the Americas continues to take its toll on the population.

A person is taken on a stretcher into the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas after going through testing for COVID-19 on Thursday (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

There have also been over 91.9 million COVID-19 infections reported during the pandemic. There is no doubt, given the asymptomatic nature of most cases and lack of testing in many countries, that this number is a gross underestimate. In October, Dr. Mike Ryan, the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program executive director, said, “Our current best estimates tell us that this virus may have infected about ten percent of the global population.”

It would mean that based on an estimate of 7.6 billion people, little more than 760 million people had been infected last autumn. Yesterday saw over 663,000 infections and 15,706 deaths. The current seven-day average in daily cases is approaching three quarters of a million a day. The US, with 222,121 cases, reported 4,259 deaths. Both Germany and the UK saw over 1,000 deaths, with Europe registering 6,264 deaths in all.

The exponential growth in the UK has been fueled by the B.1.1.7 variant, which has become the most common form of the virus. The mutations in the coronavirus’ spike protein have increased its transmissibility sufficiently to increase the reproduction number from the order of 1.0 to 1.5.

Given that the variant has been discovered in over thirty countries, scientists in the US and globally expect this particular version of the virus to become the dominant form, which will push already strained health resources into uncharted waters. The situation with high oxygen demand in Southern California led five hospitals in LA County to declare an “internal disaster” on December 27. Their old decrepit oxygen delivery systems in aging hospitals, long overdue for updating, are beginning to fail under stress.

On January 4, NBC TV News reported, “Hospitals struggling to provide enough oxygen for the sickest coronavirus patients in the Los Angeles area began to receive help over the weekend when US Army Corps of Engineers crew arrived to update their oxygen delivery systems. The collaboration comes as the six aging hospitals struggle to maintain oxygen pressure while treating an unprecedented number of patients with respiratory issues. Besides the shortage of oxygen, the hospitals were having difficulty keeping up with the demand for oxygen tanks for discharged patients to take home. Some COVID-19 patients can require ten times as much oxygen as a normal patient.”

Given the social catastrophe being caused by an uncontrolled pandemic, there are significant calls to increasing vaccine production. At present, 30.5 million doses have been administered across 43 countries, of which 36 belong to rich-income countries. The United States has seen close to ten million vaccines given, according to a state-by-state tally by Bloomberg and the CDC. The UK has given 2.84 million doses, reaching 4.19 per 100 people so far. The EU began its vaccine rollout on December 27. As of January 11, only Denmark has managed to give 2 percent of its population at least one dose.

China’s Sinovac and the UK’s AstraZeneca have submitted applications for their respective vaccines to the WHO for evaluation and licensure across the EU. Currently, Pfizer and Moderna have received approval. Yet, both of the latest newcomers have demonstrated mixed results, making their efficacy challenging to interpret.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to begin research in addressing the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes COVID-19. After WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed his disappointment for last week’s failure by Chinese officials to grant final permission to an international team of researchers to enter the country and begin their investigation into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Associated Press reported that these experts would arrive on Thursday in Wuhan and meet with their Chinese counterparts.

In an attempt to control the narrative, in a public relations maneuver, foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian, after finally approving the visit, hailed it as an opportunity “to exchange views with Chinese scientists and medical experts on scientific cooperation on the tracing of the origin of the new coronavirus.” Though the country has managed to stem new domestic transmission cases through rigorous public health initiatives, a rise in new infections of COVID-19 in the Hebei province surrounding Beijing has prompted health authorities to impose recent lockdowns.

Citizens in Shijiazhuang, Hebei’s capital, have been barred from leaving, and public transports have been shut down. Health officials in Langfang City, located approximately 56 kilometers south of Beijing, have told its nearly 5 million residents to remain home for the next seven days.

According to Reuters, it had been more than five months since 127 cases had been reported on July 30 that a series of new infections began to surface in the port city of Dalian in Liaoning in mid-December. As of January 10, there have been 85 new local cases of COVID-19, of which 82 were in Hebei. The National Health Commission indicated there had been 18 imported infections. Still, Chinese authorities are scrambling to oversee emergency planning as it attempts to dissuade traveling during the Lunar New Year.

Harvard University Middle East Initiative (MEI) Research Fellowships 2021

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2021

To be taken at (country): USA

Field of Study: Priority will be given to applications pursuing one of these four primary areas of focus:

1. Democratizing Politics: Establishing durable, accountable democracies not only by focusing on political institutions, but also by empowering the region’s citizens.
2. Building Peace: Addressing the sources of domestic and interstate conflict and generating durable political settlements.
3. Revitalizing the State: Reforming the Middle East’s social service delivery systems with a special emphasis on health, education and social protection.
4. Democratizing Financial and Labor Markets: Working to ensure that the financial and labor markets in the Middle East benefit the entire population, not merely the elite.

About the Award: The Middle East Initiative (MEI) engages public policy issues in the Middle East by convening academic and policy experts, collaborating with regional partners, and developing the next generation of leaders.

Fellows are expected to be physically present at Harvard for the duration of the two-semester fellowship. Pre-doctoral research fellows are encouraged to work on, and ideally complete, their doctoral dissertations. Postdoctoral or faculty fellows may use this fellowship to complete a book or develop other works-in-progress.

Fellows are generally expected to:

• Complete a 25-30 page Working Paper to be published by the Middle East Initiative
• Present their research at seminars open to the public
• Attend seminars of other Middle East Initiative research fellows
• Participate in Middle East Initiative activities as appropriate

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:  

• Eligible candidates include advanced doctoral candidates, recent recipients of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, and untenured faculty members.
• Applicants for pre-doctoral fellowships must have passed general examinations and should be in or near the final year of their program.
• Applications are welcome from political scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, and other social scientists.
• Applications are also encourage applications from women, minorities, and citizens of all countries.

Value of Fellowship:

• The Middle East Initiative offers ten-month stipends of $40,000 to pre-doctoral fellows and $58,000 to postdoctoral fellows. Pre-doctoral fellows are not benefits eligible. Interested candidates are encouraged to apply for other sources of funding. All applicants should clearly indicate on their application form whether they are seeking full or partial funding, and indicate other potential funding sources. Non-stipendiary appointments are also offered, but the application process remains the same.
• Fellows who expect to complete their Ph.D. program prior to the fellowship can apply for a postdoctoral appointment. Confirmation of Ph.D. completion is required to receive the postdoctoral stipend rate and benefits. The fellow will be paid at the pre-doctoral rate and will not be benefits eligible until the Middle East Initiative receives confirmation of Ph.D. completion.

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply: 

• CV/Resume
• Unofficial transcript (pre-doctoral fellow applicants only)
• Research Proposal (3-5 double-spaced pages)
• Writing sample (less than 50 double-spaced pages)
• Contact information for three recommenders submitting letters on your behalf

To apply, please complete the online application form.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Report documents education inequality in Australia

Carolyn Kennett

A recent report released by the Centre for International Research on Education Systems at Melbourne’s Victoria University further lays bare the gross social inequality in Australia and how it is intensified by the education system.

Educational opportunity in Australia, 2020 indicates wide gaps in critical skills and capabilities between children from poorer families, those with an indigenous background, and those from regional and remote areas in Australia.

Front cover of Educational opportunity in Australia, 2020 report

Using data from a variety of sources, including international testing, census information and longitudinal studies, the report examines educational outcomes for young Australians. It applies benchmarks for academic attainment and other key indicators for children starting school, moving through their education, and up to 24 years of age.

Without seeking to analyse the reasons for the results, the report concludes: “Our education and training systems are dogged by inequality. No matter which way you turn, which measure you use, parts of our population are missing out and falling behind. Young people from poorer backgrounds, Indigenous Australians, and rural students experience high rates of non-completion of school, and poorer outcomes. For these Australians, our systems are not functioning well, raising a question about the quality of education and the capacity for meeting the needs of all young Australians.”

The report uses PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) and National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results uncritically among other measures to draw its conclusions. Imposed by the last federal Labor Party government of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, NAPLAN is a high-stakes testing regime that narrows the curriculum, seeking to align school education with corporate interests. Academics and statisticians have raised significant doubts about the validity and reliability of such tests, including PISA.

Nevertheless, the report’s results are stark. They point to long-term impacts on young people of a two-tiered system of education that perpetuates inequality. The report notes: “Schools serving disadvantaged communities and in remote areas often face greater teacher shortages, have fewer learning resources and sometimes are not able to offer the same breadth of learning opportunities as schools in more affluent areas or in major cities.”

Many students are not attaining critical developmental and academic milestones. The report found that more than 21 percent of five year olds are not developmentally ready on entry to school. Almost 25 percent of students are not meeting minimum literacy and numeracy skills in the middle years, nearly 28 percent of 15 year olds do not meet international benchmarks for science, numeracy and reading, and more than 28 percent of 24 year olds do not have the skills needed to become confident in themselves or in the future.

Source: Educational opportunity in Australia, 2020

The fact that the gap widens from the start of school to the end of school demonstrates that the education system is failing to provide students with the support they need to catch up to their peers. While these numbers are shocking in themselves, it is when the data is broken down into sub-groups that the picture of entrenched disadvantage is revealed.

Comparing young people from High Socio-Economic Status (SES) and Low SES backgrounds there is almost a 20 percent difference in their developmental readiness for school as five year olds. Even when low SES children are assessed as being developmentally ready for school, 20 percent of those children end up struggling by the time they reach the middle years. This gives rise to a 40 percent difference between high and low SES in the numbers of students who attain minimum standards in literacy, numeracy and science.

For 24-year-old young adults, there is a 30 percent percentage difference between high SES and low SES groups in terms of being engaged in full-time education, training or work, and the attainment of post-school qualifications.

Among indigenous youth, less than half are likely to be engaged in full-time education, training or work at 24 years of age. That may partly reflect both SES and geographic location. Young people living in remote areas are less likely to be engaged. Other studies have shown that youth who are disengaged at 24 will struggle in the long term to find work or go back into education.

Percentage of students above the national minimum standard in both reading and numeracy, by year-level and SES: 2014 (percent) Source: Educational opportunity in Australia, 2020

On nearly every measure of academic attainment, the data shows an almost linear SES-based increase in the percentage of students who have met the minimum standards. And the pattern is repeated for other key indicators across four age groups. Children from high SES backgrounds are much more likely to develop the skills and attributes they need to become successful adults than those from low SES backgrounds.

Summarising its main findings, the report notes that its results are consistent with research that demonstrates that social class is a key predictor of educational and future success.

The report does not probe the connection to the policies pursued by both Labor and Liberal-National governments at state and federal levels. But the biggest fall in Australian PISA results occurred after the Rudd and Gillard governments of 2007 to 2013 introduced NAPLAN and their “Gonski” funding model, which favoured wealthy private schools.

As the WSWS has analysed: “Together, Gonski 1.0 and NAPLAN bear major responsibility for the current school education crisis. In the majority of schools—above all, the most disadvantaged and needy—any ongoing orientation to the development of creativity, play, sports and the arts, or to new and stimulating experiences and social interactions, has been removed. At the same time, any conception of developing student ‘well-being’ as a school priority has been abandoned.”

The class inequality that this report lays bare is just one expression of the social regression being caused by the capitalist system, which seeks to subordinate every aspect of life to corporate profit. The Committee for Public Education, established by the Socialist Equality Party, is urging teachers, students, parents and the working class as a whole, to take matters into their own hands and develop a unified political struggle against the destruction of public education. Such a struggle requires a socialist perspective where high-quality education, based on a scientific understanding of teaching and learning, is viewed as a social right for all.

UK government accelerates “hostile environment” against immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers

Simon Whelan

The Conservative government’s “hostile environment” policy for immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers went into overdrive in the run up to Britain leaving the European union (EU) on December 31. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was authorized to enforce deportations of asylum seekers before the end of the Brexit transition period.

According to research based on freedom of information requests conducted by the Independent, “£2.3m was spent on forcibly removing 225 people to European countries in July, August and September this year—double the amount spent on deportation flights in the previous quarter, when 285 people were removed. Some deportation charter flights carried “only a few people onboard.”

The data showed, “On average, the cost of removing each deportee—many of whom were asylum seekers—was just over £10,100, compared with £3,900 in the second quarter of the year. As a comparison, a commercial flight ticket from the UK to Australia costs just over £900.

“Some of the charter flights that have left the UK since July 2020 took off with a fraction of the plane’s capacity onboard, with flights to Finland and Sweden carrying six and five people respectively, and one to France carrying a single deportee.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government is stepping up its policing of the English Channel in alliance with the Macron government in France. Last Saturday, the UK’s Border Force intercepted a boat off the Sussex coast with a reported 35 migrants onboard including children. Five people were reportedly injured.

A Border Force vessel brings a group of people thought to be migrants into the port city of Dover, England, from small boats, Saturday Aug. 8, 2020. The British government says it will strengthen border measures as calm summer weather has prompted a record number of people to attempt the risky sea crossing in small vessels, from northern France to England. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

According to the Daily Mail, “The Home Office said that UK authorities dealt with six incidents involving 103 people on Saturday, while French authorities prevented three boats with 29 people on board entering UK waters.”

The hostile policies have resulted in 29 deaths during 2020 in Home Office accommodation, according to the Guardian , who obtained the figure from a freedom of information request. The identities of most of those who died have not been made public and the circumstances of their deaths are unclear.

On November 9 Mohamed Camera, 27 years old, from the Ivory Coast was found dead in his room in Home Office accommodation in a north London hotel. One of his friends who travelled from Calais with him on a small boat told the Guardian, “He was a nice, sociable person. He was smiling when we reached the UK because he believed that now he was going to have another life.”

A Home Office spokesperson confirmed the death of Camera and officials said they were “saddened” by it.

An inquest jury found on November 30 that the death of Oscar Okwurime, a Nigerian man, resulting from a subarachnoid haemorrhage was considered “unnatural” and that neglect contributed to his death.

Another asylum seeker who died last year was 41-year-old Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah Alhabib, who fled Yemen and was found dead in a Manchester hotel room on August 6. Alhabib arrived on British shores on a small boat with 15 other people from Yemen, Syria and Iran. After being picked up by the UK Border Force, Home Office officials detained them at the notorious Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire for three days before shifting them to Manchester.

Another asylum seeker who travelled with Alhabib said, “All of us on these journeys, we have lost our country, lost our family, lost our future. When we got into the boat in Calais we felt the sea was the only place left for us to go”.

Clare Moseley, founder of the Care4Calais charity, told the Guardian , “It’s shameful that more refugees die here in the UK, in Home Office accommodation, than do so in Calais or trying to cross the Channel.

“But the way we treat them in this country is cruel. Our government doesn’t give them the basics of life like adequate food and clothing. It locks them up in military barracks and keeps them isolated and depressed in hotels. It keeps them under constant threat of deportation, instead of processing their asylum applications promptly.”

Graham O’Neill, policy manager for the Scottish Refugee Council, told the media there is no Home Office public policy regarding the deaths of refugees and asylum seekers. There is no facility to offer support with funeral costs or repatriation of the body, nor is there any proactive learning mechanism to prevent sudden or unexplained deaths.

The day before the death toll of asylum seekers was published, a high court judge ruled that the Home Office was in breach of its duties to protect the human rights of asylum seekers against homelessness. Judge Knowles found the Home Office was responsible for a wholesale failure to monitor and implement a £4 billion contract awarded to several private companies over a 10-year period, leading to unlawful delays in provision of accommodation.

Freedom of information responses from the Home Office obtained by the Scottish Refugee Council found that between January and March 2020, 83 percent of Home Office properties to accommodate asylum seekers had defects and 40 percent of the defects were so serious they made the properties uninhabitable. The defects were identified by Home Office inspectors.

The judge found that the five claimants in the case, asylum-seekers considered by the Home Office to be “highly vulnerable” and eligible for housing support, had been rendered homeless for prolonged periods. In one case a severely disabled man was forced to live and sleep on friends’ settee and at times on the streets near the renal clinic he attended for kidney dialysis because the government failed to move him into suitable housing. The Home Office assessed him as needing level access accommodation and accepted that this should be close to his dialysis clinic. However, it took nine months and three applications to the court before this was provided.

Justice Knowles ruled that in breach of the law the Home Office had failed to monitor the provision of accommodation to disabled migrants and discriminated unlawfully against the man by subjecting him to shoddy treatment because of his disability. Disabled peoples’ needs were “insufficiently identified, information about those needs is insufficiently shared, and those needs are insufficiently addressed within the system that is being used”.

In December 19, the High Court ruled that the Home Office is unlawfully preventing asylum seekers from seeking paid employment while they await a decision on their application. Justice Bourne ruled that Home Office policy guidance on asylum seekers’ permission to work was unlawful because it discriminates against trafficking victims and restricts asylum seekers to certain types of employment.

Current Home Office policy states that asylum seekers may apply for permission to work after they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for more than a year. However, permission may only be granted for employment subject to Britain’s “Shortage Occupation” list, which consists predominantly of jobs requiring post graduate qualifications. These jobs comprise approximately 1 percent of British jobs opportunities.

The claimant who brought the challenge is a woman who has been recognised as a victim of domestic servitude and sexual exploitation, who applied for asylum in 2018 after absconding from her trafficker. Having waited over a year for a decision, she applied for permission to work as a cleaner and provided evidence that gainful employment would be conducive towards her psychological recovery and help prevent further exploitation. She was refused permission to work and told to look for a vacancy on the ‘Shortage Occupation’ list for which she was unqualified.

By the end of March 2020, 32,000 people had been waiting beyond six months for a decision on their initial asylum claim, a 68 percent increase on 2019 and the highest number since records began. Asylum seekers in Britain live in destitution on the £5.66 daily support allowance from the government. Research has revealed that the government could receive just short of £100 million a year, with income tax, National Insurance contributions and reduced support payments, if it lifted the ban on asylum seekers working.

Massive protest in Berlin against plans to reopen schools

Markus Salzmann

Teachers, parents and students have responded with massive protests against the plans of the Berlin Senate (state executive) to largely reopen schools amid rising infection figures. But despite this opposition and clear scientific evidence that schools are a major driver of the pandemic, the state government of the Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Left Party is sticking to the herd immunity policy in the interests of big business.

The Senate had initially planned to send back all graduating classes as early as next week and the lower classes a week later. A complete return to face-to-face teaching was then planned from mid-February. “I want to return to face-to-face teaching as urgently as possible,” Berlin’s mayor Michael Müller (SPD) told the House of Representatives (state legislature).

Pupil Moritz is on his way to the first day at his new school in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2020. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

Given the dramatic rise in coronavirus infections in the capital, the Senate’s decision triggered a storm of indignation that forced it to partially withdraw its plans on Friday evening.

Christoph Podewils, a Berlin family man, started an online petition demanding “No face-to-face teaching in Berlin until COVID-19 is under control,” which had garnered more than 45,000 signatures by the weekend. The petition demanded that Müller and Education Senator (state minister) Sandra Scheeres (SPD) reverse their “irresponsible decision.” Previously, educators had also addressed Scheeres in an open letter.

Several Berlin schools also resisted the Senate’s decision. The head of the Steglitz Fichtenberg grammar school, Andreas Steiner, said in Tagesspiegel, “In my opinion, the planned reopening of schools is irresponsible and negligent. Our employer’s actions in this regard pose a threat to the efforts of society as a whole to contain the pandemic and disproportionately risk the health of teachers, students and the health of affected families.”

A headteacher from Treptow-Köpenick told broadcaster rbb that she would definitely not open her school on Monday. Earlier, schools in the Neukölln district had opposed the decision. Richard Gamp, spokesperson for the state school board, demanded that reliable figures on the current incidence of infections be available before schools could be reopened.

The state parents’ committee reacted with outrage, “Domestic contacts are being reduced to one person. But in schools, pupils from up to 16 households are allowed to meet with their teachers in classrooms.”

On social media, numerous posts objected to the dangerous reopening of schools. Under hashtags such as #KeepSchoolsandNurseriesClosed, hundreds of posts against the Senate’s policy appeared in a short time.

After the Senate’s partial retreat, Ralf Treptow of the Association of Senior School Principals remarked, “Once again, the question arises why the senator always has to wait until her back is against the wall to meet fundamental demands from practitioners.”

After the protests, individual representatives of the Greens and the Left Party welcomed the postponement of school reopenings. But this cannot hide the fact that they had fully supported the original decision to reopen. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Senate coalition has been one of the champions of the policy of keeping schools and day-care centres open. The result is alarmingly high infection rates and overburdened hospitals.

In the meantime, more than 105,000 people have been infected with the virus in Berlin; 1,560 have died from it. At the end of the week, the new virus mutation was detected in Berlin for the first time, which may be significantly more contagious than the previous strain. According to researchers, there are initial indications that children are even more susceptible to this new variation of the virus than adults, which increases the risk if schools and day-care centres open. In the last three days, the incidence rate in Berlin has risen from 130.6 to 191.7 per 100,000. Berlin’s Charité hospital recently extended its emergency programme and imposed a ban on visits.

The devastating consequences of reopening schools were most recently made public by the tragic death of Soydan A., a teacher at a community school in Berlin-Kreuzberg. The young educator had almost certainly contracted the disease while at school. But even such events leave the government representatives cold.

Until the very end, Müller and Scheeres defended their irresponsible policy. With her usual arrogance and callousness, Scheeres even told Tagesspiegel that she had received “quite a few emails” encouraging her to stick with the reopening decision despite the protests. With the originally planned return to face-to-face teaching from Monday, she had done “exactly what parents and school administrators wanted.”

The SPD politician described the reopening, which would have put the health and lives of thousands of teachers and pupils at risk, as “a conscious decision, a well-considered decision.” She said that a responsible balance had to be struck between the need to protect health and the right to education. Her Green coalition partner said the same. “Every day of lockdown means another day of widening the gap between those who can learn and those who cannot,” said Green Party parliamentary group leader Silke Gebel.

The regulations that have now been passed also offer no protection for pupils, teachers and educators. Also, the Senate has left no doubt that it wants to reintroduce compulsory attendance as soon as possible.

Home learning for pupils in grades 1 to 9 will be extended until January 25, Scheeres announced. For the final years, 10-13, at grammar schools and secondary schools, however, attendance in small groups will be possible as early as next week. The respective schools can decide for themselves whether to offer so-called alternating lessons, with learning at home and school or only at home.

Attendance for final-year classes poses a double risk. Not only are the students and teachers exposed to danger at the schools themselves, but they also must travel to school—mostly by public transport. Graduating classes are those age groups that are currently infected with COVID-19 at a higher-than-average rate.

Inessa criticised the Senate’s decision, telling WSWS, “Any teaching in schools is highly dangerous to health.” Inessa is due to take an exam at an upper secondary school in Berlin-Charlottenburg this week, although there have already been several cases of infection at the school and classes have had to be quarantined. “Ms. Scheeres’ policy of reopening schools in the face of the millions of COVID-19 deaths worldwide is so intolerably inhumane that this woman should be locked up.” It was incomprehensible to the pupil that online lessons were not being organised in such a way that they are “reasonable and function properly.”

This is also confirmed by Frank (name changed), a primary school teacher who works in Berlin-Mitte. He complained that he feels abandoned by the Senate. For example, urgently needed materials for online teaching were only now being delivered. “Who is supposed to quickly instruct the children in using the [electronic] devices now under these conditions?” FFP2 masks had only arrived in the last week, and far too few, Frank added.

Like Inessa, Frank is appalled by the Senate’s policy, saying, “Even though the virus was already going through the school, masks were only mandatory in the corridors.” Teachers and students are being pushed into an impossible situation by the Senate. “Why doesn’t anyone listen to the recommendations of the scientific community?” They had long identified schools as the drivers of the pandemic, he said.

In Inessa’s view, reopening schools was “complete madness.” She condemned the hypocrisy of the SPD, Greens and the Left Party, who are supposedly concerned about children’s education. “If they were committed to good education, they would have provided better facilities at schools years ago, with enough school materials, more teachers and hygienic toilets.”

The situation at day-care centres is also significant. These remain in emergency operation. With businesses open, this means that parents are still being forced to bring their children to a day-care centre in order to work, continuing to expose educators, children and their parents to the risk of infections. Twitter user “mpo” commented, “My child’s day-care centre in Berlin has 190 children; 160 are now in emergency care. Any more questions why the ‘lockdown’ isn’t working?”

To counter the unscrupulous policies of the coalition in the Berlin Senate, students, parents, teachers and educators must take the fight into their own hands. Action committees independent of the establishment parties and trade unions must be built and strikes organised to shut schools and non-essential businesses to put an end to the criminal herd immunity policy. It is crucial to conduct this offensive based on a socialist perspective. As is vividly demonstrated in Berlin, all the Bundestag (parliamentary) parties and governments are committed to policies that put profits above human lives.