COVID-19 UPDATES

 UK volunteer first in the world to trial coronavirus antibody treatment

Fri, 20 November 2020


The UK is to become the first country to begin clinical trials of a new coronavirus antibody treatment aimed at people with a weakened immune system who cannot be vaccinated.

A volunteer in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, will be the first in the world to receive AstraZeneca's new "antibody cocktail" as part of the trial to test whether it will prevent COVID-19 for up to year.

The clinical trial programme will recruit 5,000 participants, which includes 1,000 people from nine sites in the UK.

The aim of the trial is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a combination of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies - man-made proteins that act like natural human antibodies in the immune system.

Sir Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals R&D at AstraZeneca, said the treatment can be injected or administered intravenously.

"There is going to be a significant number of people - even in a world where vaccines are highly effective - who will not respond to vaccines, or in fact will not take vaccines," he added.

"So having monoclonal antibodies as potential therapeutics is also important."

The UK government has an in-principle agreement to secure access to one million doses of the antibody combination, dubbed AZD7442, if it is successful in the phase three trials.

The trial aims to enrol adults who are at increased risk of coronavirus infection or who are more likely to have an inadequate response to vaccination, and will include people from health care and care home settings.

Initial results from the randomised control trial are expected to be published in the first half of 2021, although the trial is expected to last for 12 months.

:: Subscribe to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

While it is unclear how much the antibody treatment will cost, Sir Mene said it will be "more expensive than vaccines", but added "we hope to make it cost effective".

Business Secretary Alok Sharma said: "As we move closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, we must keep driving forward clinical trials for new and alternative treatments that protect our vulnerable, particularly those who cannot receive a vaccine."

Childhood vaccine linked to less severe COVID-19, cigarette smoke raises risk

By Nancy Lapid
Fri, 20 November 2020

An illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), depicts the 2019 Novel Coronavirus


By Nancy Lapid

(Reuters) - The following is a roundup of some of the latest scientific studies on the novel coronavirus and efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus.

Childhood vaccine may help prevent severe COVID-19

People whose immune systems responded strongly to a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine may be less likely to become severely ill if they are infected with the new coronavirus, new data suggest. The MMR II vaccine, manufactured by Merck and licensed in 1979, works by triggering the immune system to produce antibodies. Researchers reported on Friday in mBio that among 50 COVID-19 patients under the age of 42 who had received the MMR II as children, the higher their titers -- or levels -- of so-called IgG antibodies produced by the vaccine and directed against the mumps virus in particular, the less severe their symptoms. People with the highest mumps antibody titers had asymptomatic COVID-19. More research is needed to prove the vaccine prevents severe COVID-19. Still, the new findings "may explain why children have a much lower COVID-19 case rate than adults, as well as a much lower death rate," coauthor Jeffrey Gold, president of World Organization, in Watkinsville, Georgia, said in a statement. "The majority of children get their first MMR vaccination around 12 to 15 months of age and a second one from 4 to 6 years of age." (https://bit.ly/3kPnW6P)

Cigarette smoke increases cell vulnerability to COVID-19

Exposure to cigarette smoke makes airway cells more vulnerable to infection with the new coronavirus, UCLA researchers found. They obtained airway-lining cells from five individuals without COVID-19 and exposed some of the cells to cigarette smoke in test tubes. Then they exposed all the cells to the coronavirus. Compared to cells not exposed to the smoke, smoke-exposed cells were two- or even three-times more likely to become infected with the virus, the researchers reported on Tuesday in Cell Stem Cell. Analysis of individual airway cells showed the cigarette smoke reduced the immune response to the virus. "If you think of the airways like the high walls that protect a castle, smoking cigarettes is like creating holes in these walls," coauthor Brigitte Gomperts told Reuters. "Smoking reduces the natural defenses and this allows the virus to enter and take over the cells." (https://bit.ly/3kPAYRx)

AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in elderly

AstraZeneca and Oxford University's experimental COVID-19 vaccine produced strong immune responses in older adults in a mid-stage trial, researchers reported on Thursday in The Lancet. Late-stage trials are underway to confirm whether the vaccine protects against COVID-19 in a broad range of people, including those with underlying health conditions. The current study involved 560 healthy volunteers, including 240 age 70 or over. Volunteers received one or two doses of the vaccine, made from a weakened version of a common cold virus found in chimpanzees, or a placebo. No serious side effects were reported. Participants older than 80, frail patients, and those with substantial chronic illnesses were excluded, according to an editorial published with the study. "Frailty is increasingly understood to affect older adults' responses to vaccines," the editorialists write. "A plan for how to consider frailty in COVID-19 vaccine development is important." 

https://bit.ly/35OVrlq; https://bit.ly/3kKXDhP; https://reut.rs/2IVeod0

Researchers look into cells infected with new coronavirus

Cells infected with the new coronavirus die within a day or two, and researchers have found a way to see what the virus is doing to them. By integrating multiple imaging techniques, they saw the virus create "virus-copying factories" in cells that look like clusters of balloons. The virus also disrupts cellular systems responsible for secreting substances, the researchers reported on Tuesday in Cell Host & Microbe. Furthermore, it reorganizes the "cytoskeleton," which gives cells their shape and "serves like a railway system to allow the transport of various cargos inside the cell," coauthor Dr. Ralf Bartenschlager of the University of Heidelberg, Germany told Reuters. When his team added drugs that affect the cytoskeleton, the virus had trouble making copies of itself, "which indicates to us that the virus needs to reorganize the cytoskeleton in order to replicate with high efficiency," Bartenschlager said. "We now have a much better idea how SARS-CoV-2 changes the intracellular architecture of the infected cell and this will help us to understand why the cells are dying so quickly." The Zika virus causes similar cell changes, he said, so it might be possible to develop drugs for COVID-19 that also work against other viruses. https://bit.ly/2UI9BOT

Open https://tmsnrt.rs/3a5EyDh in an external browser for a Reuters graphic on vaccines and treatments in development.

(Reporting by Nancy Lapid, Kate Kelland and Alistair Smout; Editing by Tiffany Wu)

Cesarean section-born children may face higher risk of infection-related hospitalisation

November 22, 2020 


Children born via cesarean section may be more likely to be hospitalised for infection during early childhood. A study published in PLOS Medicine by Jessica Miller at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia and colleagues suggests that compared to vaginally-born children, cesarean-born children may have a higher risk of infection-related hospitalisation for up to five years of age.

While the researchers were able to observe an association between birth by cesarean section and an increased risk of infection, the study was limited in that postnatal factors that influence infection risk, such as breast feeding, vaccination status, and postnatal smoke exposure were unavailable, which could potentially confound the results.

The authors stress that the findings should not discourage women from having cesareans when medically indicated and despite the small increased risk of childhood infections, cesarean births may be the safest option for some women and babies.

UK
Public sector pay freeze puts manifesto promise to boost new teacher pay to £30,000 in doubt


Harry Yorke
Fri, 20 November 2020

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson’s election pledge to raise newly qualified teachers’ pay to £30,000 appeared in doubt on Friday as Rishi Sunak prepares to usher in "pay restraint" across the public sector.

The £6,000 pay hike was a central plank of the Conservative Party’s election manifesto, with Mr Johnson promising to make teaching one of the “most competitive” jobs in the graduate labour market.

However, Downing Street refused to say whether the commitment, which represents a 25 per cent uplift and is supposed to be fulfilled by 2022, would still be met after the Chancellor sets out the one-year spending review next week.

Ministers have previously said the rises would have to be funded from planned increases to school budgets over the next three years.

It came as the Office for National Statistics yesterday confirmed that public sector debt hit £2.08 trillion in October, with Government borrowing in the first seven months of the financial year rising to an estimated £215bn.

Government spending as a share of GDP has also risen from 40 per cent to 60 per cent of GDP in 2020, the highest level seen since the Second World War, according to an analysis by the Resolution Foundation think tank.

Mr Sunak said that the figures showed that “over time it’s right we ensure the public finances are put on a sustainable path”, with the Chancellor now expected to announce a one-year freeze or cap.

Teachers, police officers, soldiers and civil servants are expected to be included, although NHS workers could be exempted in recognition of their efforts during the coronavirus pandemic.

The reports prompted a widespread backlash from trade union leaders yesterday, with Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, warning that “industrial action cannot be ruled out.”

Frances O’Grady, leader of the Trades Union Congress, added: “TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "A pay freeze would be a bitter pill for care workers, refuse collectors, emergency workers and all the key workers in the public sector who have helped keep the country going through this pandemic.”

While the freeze or cap is expected to last for one year, there are fears that the scale of the blackhole in the public finances created by the crisis will require continued restraint throughout the course of this Parliament.

The Centre for Policy Studies think tank has estimated that a three-year freeze could save the Exchequer up to £23 billion, falling to £11.7bn if Mr Sunak opts for a one per cent pay cap, and £7.7bn if healthcare workers are excluded.

Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, told The Telegraph that it was “difficult” to see how the Government could maintain the commitment to increasing qualified teachers’ salaries to £30,000.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “The teaching profession has already endured a decade of pay freezes, in contrast to pay growth in the private sector.

“This made teaching an uncompetitive career option for graduates who have looked to other sectors to build their careers. The government’s plans will make a dire situation even worse.”

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said that there would be “no return to austerity” but refused to rule out a public sector pay freeze.

Asked whether newly qualified teachers would be exempt, he added: “You wouldn’t expect me to comment on what could, or may or may not be in the spending review next week.”

The Telegraph understands that Mr Sunak is also unlikely to bring forward any long-term solution for fixing Britain’s social care system.

Government insiders had previously suggested that Downing Street had been considering a cut to university tuition fees, as recommended by the Augur review.

However, the idea is also believed to have been dismissed following the decision to opt for a one-year spending review.

Belloc's Anti-Capitalism

A tip o' the blog to the Distributist Review. A blog that links here. A collective effort has an interesting piece on the British Christian Distributist; C. K. Chesterton, and his discovery by the post-Marxist and Neo-Leninist Slavoj Žižek They also link to this Hillarie Belloc excerpt from Athanasius Contra Mundum His is a particularly pointed alternative view of why capitalism evolved as it did, and one can see the similarity with, and appeal it would have to, those who advocate market socialism, the ideas of cooperative capitalism and guild socialism, the mutualist and volunteerist libertarians.

Consider in what way the industrial system developed upon Capitalist lines. Why were a few rich men put with such ease into possession of the new methods? Why was it normal and natural in their eyes and in that of contemporary society that those who produced the new wealth with the new machinery should be proletarian and dispossessed? Simply because the England upon which the new discoveries had come was already an England owned as to its soil and accumulations of wealth by a small minority: it was already an England in which perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian, and a medium for exploitation ready to hand. When any one of the new industries was launched it had to be capitalized; that is, accumulated wealth from some source or other had to be found which would support labor in the process of production until that process should be complete. Someone must find the corn and the meat and the housing and the clothing by which should be supported, between the extraction of the raw material and the moment when the consumption of the finished article could begin, the human agents which dealt with that raw material and turned it into the finished product. Had property been well distributed, protected by cooperative guilds, fenced round and supported by custom and by the autonomy of great artisan corporations, those accumulations of wealth, necessary for the launching of each new method of production and for each new perfection of it, would have been discovered in the mass of small owners. Their corporations, their little parcels of wealth combined would have furnished the capitalization required for the new process, and men already owners would, as one invention succeeded another, have increased the total wealth of the community without disturbing, the balance of distribution. There is no conceivable link in reason or in experience which binds the capitalization of a new process with the idea of a few employing owners and a mass of employed non-owners working at a wage. Such great discoveries coming in society like that of the thirteenth century would have blest and enriched mankind. Coming upon the diseased moral conditions of the eighteenth century in this country, they proved a curse. Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State

An audio version of the Servile State can be downloaded from Yahoos for American Freedom. A variety of digitalized editions are available for download here. Belloc is embraced by the post WWII new right whether by the YAF or Murray Rothbard, as a conservative.

Book Review: The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc

By Leonard P. Liggio Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) was indeed an Edwardian Radical as described in John McCarthy's biography (also published by Liberty Press). The Servile State represented Belloc's disgust with politics after serving in the House of Commons. He found politicians in control of organizing any new industries; cabinet officers determining which businessmen would control new industries. If capitalism were absolutely recognized, according to Belloc, government-created monopolies could not continue. But, from inside parliament, he saw “executive statesmen” determining which group of businessmen would operate that sphere of industry. The system described by Belloc in 1913 emerged most fully as the corporatism of the 1930s; it extended from Berlin to Washington. F. A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom saw Belloc as a prophet; and Robert Nisbet, in his introduction to this edition, notes “just as Belloc predicted, we find the real liberties of individuals diminished and constricted by the Leviathan we have built in the name of equality.”

It is a view that is also shared by Catholic apologists and promoters of a Catholic Third Way between socialism and capitalism. Which in Canada is reflected in the ideology of Elizabeth May's Green Party.

Hilaire Belloc "and All the Rest of It"

In Land and Water, his speculations on the developments of the First World War won accolades from the Times. In his classic The Servile State, is there not an anticipation of that socialist choking of individual liberty as is evidenced in post-war Western governments? Already in 1913 Belloc seemed to see the coming Keynesian model of state control of the economy through money and taxes when he forecasted:

The future of industrial society... is a future in which subsistence and security shall be guaranteed for the proletariat, but shall be guaranteed at the expense of the old political freedom and by the establishment of that proletariat in a status really, though not nominally, servile.³

From a personal viewpoint, and within the narrow latitude of my knowledge of English letters, I would put forward that next to Maritain’s seminal work on the philosophical implications of Luther’s revolt,⁴ Belloc’s thesis of the after-effects of the Reformation, in a socio-political context, were very accurate and not so outlandish as some of his critics have contested

Hilaire Belloc and the Liberal Revival

There is arguably a parallel liberal tradition in Britain which has usually been independent of the Liberals or Liberal Democrats.

It is recognisably Liberal in its commitment to individual freedom and local self-determination, but it has included Radicals (Cobbett), Tories (Ruskin, or so he said), Socialists (Morris) and Greens (Schumacher). And though both traditions have influenced each other in every generation, they have rarely come together in Parliament.

The exception - and it was a brief exception - was in the political career of the writer, poet and historian Hilaire Belloc, Liberal MP for South Salford from 1906 to 1910.

And although the Roman Catholic political doctrines that so influenced Belloc seem pretty dusty in the UK these days, it was Pope Leo XIII who first coined the concept of 'subsidiarity' in his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1896. It was this idea that was taken up by Belloc, turned into a political creed in Distributism, rescued from obscurity by Schumacher - only to pop up again as the central tenet of Euro-ideology, and the part that knits Liberal Democrat European policy with its enthusiasm for decentralisation.

Though at the time of his publishing the Servile State in 1912, the American Marxist; Daniel De Leon declared Belloc a communist anarchist. Of course it was a backhanded compliment, since De Leon himself was strongly opposed to communist anarchism, being a party man. His party the Socialist Labour Party, had attempted unsuccessfully to align the IWW with it as their party union, which was rejected by the membership through a counter campaign organized by the anarchists.

Socialism and the Servile State By Daniel De Leon There reached us some time ago from England a pamphlet containing the verbatim report of a debate on “Socialism and the Servile State,” which took place at Memorial Hall, London, on May 5, 1911, between Hilaire Belloc, Liberal member of Parliament in 1906–1910, and J. Ramsay MacDonald, then and still a Social-Democratic member of Parliament. The sender accompanied the pamphlet with a request for a review. Recent dispatches from London, reporting the Labor Party’s proposal for the nationalization of mines, give actuality to the debate. So far as Belloc’s economic views are concerned, he may, or may not, be a Socialist. Hard to tell. MacDonald not unjustly charged his remarks with obscurity. From certain sentiments that he dropped, we should judge that, notwithstanding that he was a Liberal member of Parliament as late as 1910, Belloc belongs—not at all an uncommon thing among the intellectual bourgeois—in the category of communist anarchy, a theory of small cooperative communities brought about by a cataclysm through despair. This, however, matters little to the subject. Belloc was not treating socialism, its merits, or demerits, its principles and its tactics. He spoke to a thesis, and that he elaborated with sufficient clearness. Belloc defined the “servile state” as a condition of society in which the mass of the people, although enjoying a minimum of economic “security and sufficiency,” are “permanently dispossessed of the means of production.” With the servile state thus defined, Belloc maintained that the Socialists, meaning the Socialists typified in Parliament by MacDonald, are drifting ever further away from socialism, and ever nearer to the idea or perfect servile state. In other words, Belloc’s contention is that the Labor Party makes for a social system in which, schooled in the school of experience, a capitalist oligarchy, possessed of the means of production, will wisely “leave well enough alone”; will wisely rest content with an abundance without toil, instead of striving after a superabundance; and will secure their rule by drying up the headspring of revolt through a system of organization that will “humanely” give security through economic sufficiency for the masses.

His definition of Belloc's political economy as communist anarchy, is correct.It is the same same political economic stateless 'socialism' as espoused by Kropotkin as well as Proudhon and Tucker. And as Marx pointed out America was the ideal of this producers alternative to capitalism; production based on use value rather than exchange value. Belloc has influenced both the right and the left, and so while he is no libertarian we could call Belloc, a conservative anti-capitalist in much the same way Marx applied that appellation to Proudhon. The belief in a nation of small, independent landowners, craftsmen and merchants. Belloc and Proudhon,viewed their ideal as a cooperative guild socialism one influenced as it was by the role of the guilds and co-fraternities in Catholic Europe and their later corporatization in England as I have written about here. And here is the critical part of Belloc's work, his Catholic view of Europe, was that of the medieval guilds and the fact that a different kind of society could have evolved out of feudalism, rather than capitalism. Based on the ideals of the guilds and co-fraternities, an alternative had always existed to both feudalism and capitalism. Not unlike Kropotkin who posits such as movement as well in the free city states, that existed outside of the State's control. While embraced by the right, Belloc's 'communist anarchism' appealed to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement.

"The Servile State" By Dorothy Day The Catholic Worker, July August 1945, 1, 3

On the eve of Hilaire Belloc’s seventy-fifth birthday, the Servile State was ushered into Great Britain with Prime Minister Attlee taking the place of Churchill. Contrary to the opinion of most conservatives, the new government is not a step toward collectivism, but a solidifying of capitalism, with the sop thrown to the proletariat of social security, health laws, education laws, etc. The State has taken possession of the masses, with their approval. Most people look upon the new regime as the lesser of two evils, and a step forward in progress.

And while the right wing likes to claim Belloc's critique of the state is an attack on socialism, it isn't. Rather it is an attack on the liberal capitalist state. A state that developed after WWI, in response to the Bolshevik Revolution. A state that capitalism needed to halt a world wide revolutionary movement. As a result capitalism instead of collapsing as predicted by vulgar Marxists, embraced the state as its savior heralding the historic era of state capitalism.

Distributivism

But today the future of the Keynesian arrangement seems in doubt. In both Europe and America, the costs of government seem ready to outstrip the ability of society to support them. Further, the willingness of corporate interests to continue the arrangement is ending; they have invested great sums and great energies in seeking an end to the system and their efforts are paying off. Corporations are seeking to externalize social costs that have heretofore been part of the wage system, such as medical insurance, pensions, and unemployment costs. However, it is doubtful that shifting these responsibilities can be accomplished without introducing the very insecurities that occasioned the arrangements in the first place. Thus the Keynesian system seems to be caught in a conundrum, the very conundrum pointed out by Belloc. It cannot continue its Keynesian bargain (and this is especially so in the face of global competition), and it cannot drop it without risking chaos. John P. McCarthy, Hilaire Belloc: Edwardian Radical. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1978. 373 pp. $2.00. This book I have read only in cursory fashion, but I have picked up enough to know why Tolkien and Lewis are indebted to him. Tolkien was educated at the same school at Cardinal Newman's Oratory in Birmingham, but Belloc was not nearly so taken with the sacred image of Saint John Henry as Tolkien was. On the contrary, his hero was Cardinal Manning, the author of Rerum Novarum and champion of the small property owner. Newman, in Belloc’s estimate, was allied with the Old Catholics who were quite content to remain a noble and dignified minority, but Manning was an Ultramontane Catholic who championed the immigrant workers and converts. Yet Tolkien and Belloc were agreed in being Little Englanders who feared foreign alliances, not from xenophobia but because they were opposed to all nationalistic accretions of state power to defend interests abroad. Belloc is thus, like Chesterton a curious paradox: a radical Tory (323), an admirer of both the Catholic Middle Ages and the French Revolution, a hater of capitalism and a lover of private ownership of property. But Belloc is far from being mere inane contradiction. He was opposed to all privileges and monopolies in society: ownership of land, religious establishment, and local government. He wanted to extend the personal freedom and economic liberty won by the petit bourgeoisie to the entire populace: “What the radicals hoped to achieve was the extension of economic freedom attained by the middle-class entrepreneur to the population at large. They sought to correct the economic plight of the poorer classes while remaining within the laissez-faire system. They sought to put workers in more competitive relation with their employers by controls on child labor, graduated income taxes, and workmen's compensation. But in no way were these negative restraints meant to discourage savings or enterprise, nor to put industries in the hands of the state as the socialists wanted.” Such were also the original aims of the old Victorian Liberals: John Ruskin and William Morris, John Bright and John Morley, Richard Cobden, William Cobbett and Benjamin Disraeli. It was Lloyd George who first betrayed this vision. He changed an essentially negative vision of government as putting restraints on privilege to a positive vision of the welfare state as providing for all the basic needs of society. And George also linked this new omnicompetent state to an increasingly bureaucratized party supported by a plutocracy far worse than the old landowners. The party also spent most of its energy on popular elections that appealed entirely to the collectivist voter fighting for his mere economic interests: “Belloc saw the new style of mass politics and the collectivist new liberalism as closely intertwined, and subservient to the interests and needs of the newer privileged class, the capitalist plutocrats, who had come to replace the landed aristocracy.” But because these New Liberals wouldn't go all the way over to outright socialism, the Labor Party was founded to realize the full-fledged welfare state. Belloc was more opposed to the Liberals than the Fabians because he saw the former as producing a benignly servile state "where the proletariat masses would be reassured as to their economic security and sufficiency, and protected against cruelty by the owners of capital, but where at the same time they would be 'permanently dispossessed of the means of production'" (288-89). Thus did Belloc think Liberalism far more dangerous than the overt socialism of the Fabians.

The Roads to Serfdom by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal Spring 2005

In fact, Hilaire Belloc, in his book The Servile State, predicted just such a form of collectivism as early as 1912. Like most intellectuals of the age, Belloc was a critic of capitalism, because he held it responsible for the poverty and misery he saw in the London slums. His view was static, not dynamic: he did not see that the striving there could—and would—lift people out of their poverty, and he therefore argued that the liberal, laissez-faire state—“mere capitalist anarchy,” he called it—could not, and should not, continue. He foresaw three possible outcomes.

His preferred resolution was more or less the same as Carlyle’s half a century earlier: a return to the allegedly stable and happy medieval world of reciprocal rights and duties. There would be guilds of craftsmen and merchants in the towns, supplying mainly handmade goods to one another and to peasant farmers, who in turn would supply them with food. Everyone would own at least some property, thereby having a measure of independence, but no one would be either plutocrat or pauper. However desirable this resolution, though, even Belloc knew it was fantasy.

The second possible resolution was the socialist one: total expropriation of the means of production, followed by state ownership, allegedly administered in the interests of everyone. Belloc had little to say on whether he thought this would work, since in his opinion it was unlikely to happen: the current owners of the means of production were still far too strong.

That left the third, and most likely, resolution. The effect of collectivist thought on a capitalist society would not be socialism, but something quite distinct, whose outlines he believed he discerned in the newly established compulsory unemployment insurance. The means of production would remain in private hands, but the state would offer workers certain benefits, in return for their quiescence and agreement not to agitate for total expropriation as demanded in socialist propaganda.

Unlike Orwell or Beveridge, however, he realized that such benefits would exact a further price: “A man has been compelled by law to put aside sums from his wages as insurance against unemployment. But he is no longer the judge of how such sums shall be used. They are not in his possession; they are not even in the hands of some society which he can really control. They are in the hands of a Government official. ‘Here is work offered to you at twenty-five shillings a week. If you do not take it you shall certainly not have a right to the money you have been compelled to put aside. If you will take it the sum shall stand to your credit, and when next in my judgment your unemployment is not due to your recalcitrance and refusal to labour, I will permit you to have some of your money; not otherwise.’ ”

What applied to unemployment insurance would apply to all other spheres into which government intruded, Belloc intuited; and all of the benefits government conferred, paid for by the compulsory contributions of the taxpayer, in effect would take choice and decision making out of the hands of the individual, placing them in those of the official. Although the benefits offered by the government were as yet few when Belloc wrote, he foresaw a state in which the “whole of labour is mapped out and controlled.” In his view, “The future of industrial society, and in particular of English society . . . is a future in which subsistence and security shall be guaranteed for the Proletariat, but shall be guaranteed . . . by the establishment of that Proletariat in a status really, though not nominally, servile.” The people lose “that tradition of . . . freedom, and are most powerfully inclined to [the] acceptance of [their servile status] by the positive benefits it confers.”

An Essay on the Restoration of Property, by Hilaire Belloc

In this essay, Belloc presents an alternative to the dehumanising obsession with money, and the monopolistic capitalist power that so often flows from it. That alternative is, as the title suggests, the restoration of property; in a word, "distributism."

"The evil [industrial capitalism] has gone so far," Belloc tells us, "that the creation of new and effective immediate machinery [to counteract it] is impossible." Therefore, the restoration of property - whether it be in the shape of families farming small parcels of land, self-reliant businesses, independent craftsmen, and so on - must be the result of a new mood. "It must grow from seed planted in the breast," he says. And to have a chance at success, the distributist vision "must everywhere be particular, local, and in its origins at least, small."

Restoration of Property is, perhaps, Belloc's most famous distributist tract. It is his roadmap, guiding us through the distributist vision of things, what a distributist society looks like, and how it might be achieved and preserved.

And what benefit does Belloc see at the core of that vision? In his words: "The object of those who think as I do in this matter is not to restore purchasing power [for the average working man] but to restore economic freedom."

Of course to be set free of something, one must first be bound by something. That "something" in this case is what, in Belloc's early 20th century world, he refers to as the "servile state," i.e., that capitalist society where all men (except for the few powerful controllers of wealth) are securely nourished "on a wage, or, lacking this, a subsidy in idleness."

That description, though obviously unknown to Belloc at the time, describes a society remarkably like most of the industrialised Western world of the 21st century.

Moreover, there are indications that Belloc's notions about economic freedom for the common man, and the evils associated with the acquisition of unlimited wealth and power, were not merely reflective of the times in which he wrote.

Consider this comment from Samuel Francis in a recent issue of a popular journal of American culture: "The economic trend in the United States today, aided by the political trend of the federal government, is toward the concentration of economic and political power in fewer and fewer hands".

Welfare in the Servile State' In our century, we have recognised totalitarianism as a system of enslavement. In 1912 Hilaire Belloc, responding to the Lloyd George budget of 1909 thought he detected the emergence of something called "The Servile State".

It was this phrase which the philosopher John Anderson took up in Sydney during the last war, in 1943, in the course of diagnosing the development of regimentation and servility in Australia. In 1961, Michael Oakeshott took up a similar theme in "The Masses in Representative Democracy". I want to make some comments on these last two writers.

Anderson in 1943 was in the process of liberating himself from "the worker's movement" - though not from a belief in the reality of "movements". But what he wanted to insist on was that workers are different from slaves: different both economically and politically, and the difference lies in the moral fact he called "enterprise".John Anderson, "The Servile State" in Studies in Empirical Philosophy, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962, p. 329. What did he mean by "enterprise"? The most obvious thing he meant by enterprise was opposition. "The servile state", he remarks at the end, "is the unopposed state". But then opposition is a relational term, and depends rather on what one is opposing. Anderson was happy to live in a world of abstractions and did not much go into concrete practical matters. But it is clear that in Anderson's view a worker on strike would be enterprising as long as he was striking for some sort of principle, exhibiting independence. If he were striking for higher wages, or a better society, on the other hand, and thus exhibiting ends-means rationality, he would (on my reading of Anderson) be exhibiting the spirit of servility. "...the attitude of putting the economic first' "(he wrote) "leads straight to that servility whose growth Belloc undoubtedly deplores."Anderson, pp. 330 - 331.For Anderson at this point was a follower of George Sorel. The point of strikes was opposition itself, for its own sake, and any idea of "betterment" was just, as Sorel put it, a myth. By myth he did not mean anything so vulgar as a lie, but a passionate if unreal belief which generated heroic action.

Following this line, Anderson attacked the "propaganda" of social improvement. His target was wartime solidarism, the notion that we must all pull together in order to achieve victory, and that all other activities ranging from education to art and science must be subordinated to this aim. " Servile" is thus a term properly applied to " those States which are marked by the suppression of all political opposition and thus of all independent enterprise." Anderson, p. 333.He recognises that in wartime many voluntary sacrifices will be made, and such spontaneity is in his view a sign of the strength of free societies. It is always repression, direction, central planning which he dislikes, partly for the Hayekian reason that " the anomalies and confusions of directed work are only too apparent." Anderson, p. 335.And for Anderson, the moral suasion of a feeling that one ought to do something is part of that repression. He is at heart an anarchist. That is perhaps why he is so exhilarating.

ORIGINALLY WRITTEN JULY 2007

Trump pentagon nominee hunted and killed elephants in Zimbabwe

Josh Marcus
Fri, 20 November 2020

Baby elephants pictured in Zimbabwe

(Humane Society International)

Scott O’Grady, a famous former Air Force officer recently nominated for a top Defense Department role in the Trump administration, hunted and killed two elephants in Zimbabwe in 2014 and lobbied Congress to lift trophy hunting restrictions.

The revelations were first reported by independent journalist Yashar Ali but come from congressional testimony by Mr O’Grady.

O’Grady, who became a national sensation after surviving behind enemy lines in Bosnia when his jet was shot down during the NATO peace-keeping mission, hunted the elephants on a 2014 safari. He said it was the “fulfillment of a life-long dream,” for which he paid $75,000, more than his annual income at the time.

After returning from Zimbabwe that spring, Mr O’Grady, who was nominated Tuesday to be assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, testified before a Congressional subcommittee on wildlife affairs in support of lifting the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) April 2014 suspension on importing elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

The agency said elephants were “under siege” in both countries, saying poor “management practices, a lack of effective law enforcement and weak governance have resulted in uncontrolled poaching and catastrophic population declines of African elephants."

Mr O’Grady argued in his testimony that trophy hunting helps fund conservation, and that he was accompanied by Zimbabwean government wildlife officials who monitored the hunt.

“I passionately believe that we all have a unique responsibility to conserve wild places and wild species,” he told the committee , adding “hunters are conservationists.”

Mr O’Grady did not respond to requests for comment.

At the time, Robert Mugabe was still in power in Zimbabwe. Mr Mugabe, who ran the country as a kleptocracy for nearly four decades, reportedly once ate baby elephant during a $1 million birthday celebration in 2015, and sold over 90 elephants to China and Dubai to help fund wildlife conservation.

He also criticized “white-owned” and American safaris for their impact.

“They can’t say ‘allow our people to visit, allow our people to have safaris,’ to kill our lions and take safari trophies to America,” Mr Mugabe said in 2015.

Prior to his testimony, Mr O’Grady reportedly prepared for “several weeks,” with Safari Club International, a hunting and conservation organization, who did not respond to a request for comment. He’d also previously met with FWS leadership to discuss the trophy ban in May.

The 12-year Air Force veteran is a co-chair of the Veterans for Trump group, and has previously retweeted a variety of right-wing conspiracy theories online, which included supporting Q-anon followers, as well as retweeting those labeling Dr. Anthony Fauci a member of the “deep state” and calling Covid a plot to install Marxism, according to Media Matters For America, a liberal watchdog group.

The president has reshuffled the Pentagon to elevate loyalists following his election defeat, which he refuses to concede, and the ouster of Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who had opposed the president’s desire to use active-duty troops against civil rights protests this summer.

Coronavirus epidemic 25,000 years ago could help treat current Covid-19 sufferers, study finds

Phoebe Southworth
Sat, 21 November 2020

A doctor examines a patient's lungs - Nathan Laine /Bloomberg

An ancient coronavirus epidemic 25,000 years ago could help us treat current Covid-19 sufferers, a study has found.

Scientists have identified a set of 42 genes which were altered after coming into contact with coronavirus some 900 generations ago.

The adaptations were caused by a "multigenerational coronavirus epidemic" among East Asian populations, the researchers from the USA and Australia concluded.

This likely triggered an "arms race", similar to today's worldwide rush to find a vaccine against Covid-19, the study suggests.

The scientists studied 26 populations from five regions in East Asia using data from the 1000 Genomes Project - the largest public catalogue of human genomic data.

These findings could help scientists currently working on developing treatments for Covid-19, as drugs could be tailored to target the 42 genes identified as being impacted by the virus in the past, the researchers say.

They also believe future pandemics could be prevented altogether.

"Modern human genomes contain evolutionary information tracing back tens of thousands of years, which may help identify the viruses that have impacted our ancestors – pointing to which viruses have future pandemic potential," the study states.

"By revealing the identity of our ancient pathogenic foes, evolutionary genomic methods may ultimately improve our ability to predict – and thus prevent – the epidemics of the future."

The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed, comes as scientists continue to work on ways of identifying what makes some people particularly badly affected by Covid-19, and how they can be treated.

They believe there could be genetic differences between individuals which cause some to experience more severe symptoms than others.

These differences in DNA are now being tracked by researchers who believe they offer a route to developing new drugs that could halt many of the worst consequences of suffering from Covid-19.

“The crucial point is that by understanding the impact of gene variants in the body we can now think about finding drugs that could block their pathways and help patients,” said Jeffrey Barrett, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute’s Covid-19 genomic surveillance programme.

“The bad news is that it can take years of experiments to find treatments this way. The good news is that there are now so many scientists working on this kind of thing that we might still get some quick answers.”

Previous research by King's College London suggested that genes are around 50 per cent responsible for how badly infected people suffer from certain symptoms.

In particular, it showed a strong genetic link to delirium, fever, fatigue, shortness of breath, diarrhoea and the loss of taste and smell.

Deep in coal country in Utah, there are hard lessons for climate activists

Christopher Barnard
Fri, 20 November 2020
(Keegan Rice)

Just a week before the 2020 presidential election, I spent several days in coal country.

The stop-over was part of a 50-day tour across the United States by the Conservation Coalition, dubbed the Electric Election Roadtrip, with the mission of showcasing local climate solutions up and down this remarkable country. While gridlock and partisanship reign in DC, communities, local politicians, and entrepreneurs across America are getting on with the fight against climate change. Emery County, Utah is no different.

Many environmentalists are quick to villainize the fossil fuel community as an impediment to climate action, and paint fossil fuel executives as "criminals against humanity." They tend to shrug off the concerns and economic hardship of these communities as necessary byproducts in the fight against climate change, while ignoring the generations of hard work and culture that form the identity of such communities. In fact, we were the first climate activists to visit the community in Emery County. They’ve been ignored by everyone else.

In the adjacent towns of Orangeville and Castledale — a community of 2,820 people nestled between Wilberg coal mine and the coal-fired Hunter Power Plant — what we witnessed was nothing short of remarkable. In the middle of the desert, several miles outside of town, the commissioners were in the process of building not only a carbon capture and storage machine, but also a molten salt research center. Their long-term plan is to be able to capture and reuse carbon emitted by their local coal plant, and to act as a research hub for energy storage in the form of molten salt, which is 33 times more efficient than lithium-ion batteries.

“Coal is kind of a dirty word to a lot of people,” said Lynn Sitterud, the county commissioner of Emery County. “We’re just trying to help run the experiments and help everyone learn how to continue to have a baseload using coal as a fuel [while cleaning] up the emissions.”

Their motivation comes not from tackling climate change, but primarily from the local and economic significance of coal to their community. Of course, they are concerned about clean air and the environment, but more than anything they are worried about securing the long-term sustainability of their local economy and culture. One of the commissioners told us that both his great-grandfather and his father worked in the coal industry, and now his son did too. Generations of community identity and hard work have built up a unique culture in communities like these across the United States. Not only does it represent their economic livelihood, but it also instills a powerful sense of pride for the role that they have played in powering the American economy.

Recently, however, young people have been leaving Emery County in droves, in search of greater economic opportunity. Since 2012, the number of jobs in coal nationwide has nearly halved, producing widespread economic hardship in these communities. All the coal workers and commissioners we spoke to expressed their worry at these demographic trends; after all, their kids are leaving and not returning. After successive generations of family employment, communities are being upended and broken apart. Adding insult to injury, they’re still being referred to by climate activists as careless polluters. Indeed, what scares many of these communities is the demonization from and lack of dialogue with mainstream environmentalists. They deeply fear being left behind by the energy transition, and that has become one of the motivating factors for places like Emery County to innovate with carbon capture and energy storage.

“I get to see this county from the perspective of someone who sees the hardworking men and women, who, for decades, have sacrificed sometimes their health and their careers to boost energy for the rest of the country so they can turn a switch and be at 70 degrees,” said Congressman John Curtis, who joined the team in Utah. “I think it’s so cool what’s happening here because these same men and women have the potential of transitioning to this next generation.”

Yet many people from these communities remain skeptical of politicians and the increasingly ambitious climate plans being thrown around — and the recent presidential election sharply exposed the concerns of fossil fuel communities. While there was speculation of Texas potentially flipping Democrat, with Kamala Harris even campaigning there a week before the election, Trump still won the state by over 600,000 votes. Oil and gas are the largest industry in the state, supporting over 330,000 jobs. In turn, Texas is the largest fossil fuel producer in America.

This clearly weighed on voters’ minds as they went to the ballot box, and sometimes even transcended long-standing political allegiances. Both Zapata County and Starr County in Texas, which are 90 percent Latino and normally Democratic strongholds, saw huge turnout for Trump. He won the former by 5 points, whereas he lost it by 33 in 2016, and only lost the latter by 5 points whereas he lost it by 58 to Clinton. Why? Both are some of the highest gas-producing counties in the country and don’t relate to current messaging from climate activists.

Even in key battleground states, where Biden did well, fossil fuel counties made the races much tighter than anticipated. States such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all heavy energy producers, especially oil and natural gas. While Trump won Ohio, Biden scraped by in Michigan and Pennsylvania with much smaller than expected majorities. Trump’s campaign strategy in these states focused on promising to protect jobs in the fossil fuel industry, and painting Biden as an enemy of fracking. It appears that the strategy was relatively successful. Whereas polls on average predicted that Biden would win in Pennsylvania by 6 points, he won by only 1 percent. In Michigan, polls put Biden at around 8.5 points ahead, some even claiming an advantage of 14 points, though he took it by about 3 percent. In Ohio, polls predicted a narrow Trump win by 1 percent — he ended up winning with close to 8 percent. In fossil fuel counties up and down these states, Trump’s victory margins were huge.

Clearly, many of these communities fear being left behind in the 21st century’s great energy realignment. Fears over Biden’s climate and fossil fuel plans were almost enough in some places to re-elect Trump for a second term, based on his promises to revive these industries. Instead of attracting widespread support from energy-producing areas, Biden heavily relied on young, suburban, and college-educated votes. If it weren’t for historic turnout among these demographics, America’s fossil fuel heartland would have re-elected Donald Trump.

This warrants our attention. Environmentalists cannot afford to villainize these constituencies and keep them on the sidelines, as this election has clearly shown. Rather, we need them to occupy a central seat at the table, as we seek not only an energy transition, but also a just transition.

It is only by bringing on board constituencies like Emery County and other fossil fuel counties across the country that we can achieve real and lasting change that safeguards the livelihood of these people. A greener future requires constructive debate, cooperation, and empathy. In the words of Commissioner Sitterud, “We just need support here.”

Christopher Barnard is the National Policy Director at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC)

Trump could halt birthright citizenship as his presidency wanes




By Mary Kay Linge NY POST

November 21, 2020 |

President Trump may outlaw birthright citizenship — a long-promised victory for his base — in a last-minute executive order, according to reports.

The Department of Justice has been asked to weigh in on the legal implications of an order ending an automatic right to US citizenship for children born on American soil to illegal immigrants and short-term visitors, The Hill reported.

The move, one of several executive orders under consideration by the Trump administration in its final weeks, would set up an early immigration headache for President-elect Joe Biden — and could spark a legal fight that conservatives have been spoiling for.

The legality of birthright citizenship has been presumed under the language of the 14th Amendment for decades. But it has never been considered by the Supreme Court or confirmed under federal law.

The Trump administration imposed visa restrictions on pregnant women in January in an effort to stamp out “birth tourism” — a lucrative business that promises US citizenship to the children of well-off parents in China, Russia and elsewhere.

Trump frequently railed against birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants during his first presidential campaign in 2016

Donald Trump ‘to end birthright citizenship before leaving office’

Lizzie Edmonds
Sat, 21 November 2020

President Trump is reportedly considering ending birthright citizenship before he leaves the White House.

The Hill is reporting several members of the Trump Administration are discussing pushing through an executive order on the citizenship before Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20.

Currently, any babies born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship - regardless of whether their parents are American citizens.

Critics say this means illegal immigrants and tourist visitors to the country can give birth and their child will have citizenship.

It is thought an executive order signed by President Trump would end this.

According to The Hill: “The Department of Justice has been consulted about a possible birthright citizenship order given that it would have deal with the legal implications of any new policy.”

Some experts say any executive order Trump signs on the issue would not hold up under the law because citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment.

The amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

A legal challenge to any executive order signed by the president would almost certainly be lodged if he did attempt to make changes.

The Trump Administration declined to comment specifically on the issue when approached by The Hill.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere issued a statement saying: “Since taking office, President Trump has never shied away from using his lawful executive authority to advance bold policies and fulfill the promises he made to the American people.”

The President has previously discussed ending birthright citizenship, claiming that he can enforce it without an amendment.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't,” Trump told Axios back in 2018. “It's in the process. It'll happen, with an executive order."

Birthright citizenship is only offered in 40 countries around the world, with Canada the only other western country where it is a concept.

Judge rules against Trump global media chief after firings

LYNN BERRY
Sat, 21 November 2020

FILE - In this June 15, 2020, file photo, the Voice of America building stands in Washington. A federal judge has ruled against the head of the agency that runs the Voice of America and other U.S.-funded news outlets who was accused of trying to turn it into a propaganda vehicle to promote President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ruled against the head of the agency that runs the Voice of America and other U.S.-funded news outlets who was accused of trying to turn it into a propaganda vehicle to promote President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The ruling effectively bars U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack from making personnel decisions and interfering in editorial operations.

Pack, a conservative filmmaker, Trump ally and onetime associate of former Trump political adviser Steve Bannon, made no secret of his intent to shake up the agency after taking over in June.

He proceeded to purge the leadership at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Networks and the Open Technology Fund, which works to provide secure internet access to people around the world. The director and deputy director of VOA resigned just days before the firings. Pack also dismissed their governing boards.

His moves were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress who control the agency’s budget.

The lawsuit was filed last month in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by five executives who had been fired or suspended. They accused Pack and his senior advisers of violating the “statutory firewall” intended to protect the news organizations from political interference.

After the suit was filed, Pack announced he had rescinded the “firewall rule” issued by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In a statement posted on his agency's website, he said the rule wrongly prohibited him from directing broadcast operations and “made the agency difficult to manage.”

In her ruling late Friday, Judge Beryl Howell imposed preliminary injunctions that prevent Pak from making personnel decisions about journalists employed by the agency, directly communicating with them and conducting any investigations into editorial content or individual journalists.

In July, Pack had ordered an investigation into the posting of a video package featuring now President-elect Joe Biden on a VOA website. He called the segment “pro-Biden” and said his staff was weighing disciplinary action against those responsible.

Fourteen senior VOA journalists sent a letter to management in August protesting Pack’s actions, including the dismissal of foreign journalists and his comments denigrating VOA staff, which they said were endangering their colleagues and the international broadcaster’s credibility.

“The court confirmed that the First Amendment forbids Mr. Pack and his team from attempting to take control of these journalistic outlets, from investigating their journalists for purported ‘bias,’ and from attempting to influence or control their reporting content,” Lee Crain, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

The global media agency did not immediately respond to a written request for comment on the ruling.

VOA was founded during World War II and its congressional charter requires it to present independent news and information to international audiences.

UK and Canada agree post-Brexit trade can continue under same terms as European Union deal

April Roach
Sat, 21 November 2020

Boris Johnson meeting Justin Trudeau at the G7 summit in France (PA)

The UK has reached a post-Brexit trade deal with Canada that will allow the country to continue trading under the same terms as the current European Union agreement.

Boris Johnson and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau sealed the “agreement in principle” in a video call on Saturday, the Department for International Trade (DIT) said.

According to the UK Government, the agreement will pave the way for negotiations to start next year on a new comprehensive deal with Canada.

When the Brexit transition period ends on December 31 the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement reached by the EU and Canada after seven years of negotations, will roll on into the new year.

As the terms remain the same, the agreement does not give any new benefits to business.

But industry groups expressed relief that their businesses will not face higher trade tariffs with Canada next month as they warned that similar deals were urgently needed.

Mr Johnson said the extension was “a fantastic agreement for Britain”, adding: “Our negotiators have been working flat out to secure trade deals for the UK and from as early next year we have agreed to start work on a new, bespoke trade deal with Canada that will go even further in meeting the needs of our economy.”

Speaking during the video call, which also included International Trade Secretary Liz Truss and her counterpart Mary NG, Mr Trudeau said the deal meant that “now we get to continue to work on a bespoke agreement, a comprehensive agreement over the coming years that will really maximise our trade opportunities and boost things for everyone”.

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry welcomed the “necessary” deal.

“It is now vital that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss show the same urgency in securing the other 14 outstanding continuity agreements with countries like Mexico, Ghana and Singapore, where a total of £60 billion of UK trade is still at risk, and time is beginning to run out,” she added.

Today the UK and #Canada have agreed a vital trade continuity agreement. 🇬🇧 🇨🇦

This deal means:
✅ certainty for businesses and industry
✅ a foundation for a new, advanced trade deal
✅ and brings us one step closer to joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership.#CanadaDeal pic.twitter.com/CX96Ba8rRB
— Liz Truss (@trussliz) November 21, 2020

British Chambers of Commerce director general Adam Marshall said the deal “will be warmly welcomed” but warned that similar continuity deals were urgently needed with other key markets, including Turkey and Singapore, to avoid “a damaging cliff edge for both importers and exporters”.

He repeated his call for a deal to be struck with the EU, describing that as the “single most critical trade agreement our business communities need”.

Federation of Small Businesses chairman Mike Cherry added: “There was always a danger that the end of the transition period would mean losing wider international market access that we enjoyed as part of EU membership.

“The fact that this new agreement upholds the small business chapter that was previously in place is very welcome. We look forward to such chapters being at the centre of all future UK trade deals.”

Confederation of British Industry director-general Josh Hardie said it was “great news for businesses” and that the agreement can “lay the foundations for an even deeper trade agreement”.

Before it is formally signed, the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement will be subject to final legal checks.

Additional reporting by PA Media.