BYE BYE NRA
Cuts at powerful pro-Trump political group threaten its influence in 2020 — after it spent more than $30 million to elect the president
May 5, 2020 By Igor Derysh, Salon
The National Rifle Association (NRA) laid off dozens of workers and slashed staff pay after the coronavirus pandemic forced the gun advocacy group to cancel its annual convention and a slew of fundraising events, according to a leaked internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The pandemic threatens to weaken the NRA’s influence ahead of the 2020 election after it forced the group to scrap fundraisers and membership events despite facing severe financial difficulties. The NRA has lost about $100 million as it wages a series of legal battles which have bled the group dry and exposed allegations about financial mismanagement by the group’s top executives.
The NRA has laid off or furloughed dozens of its employees, slashed salaries by 20% and imposed a four-day workweek for some of its workers, according to a memo by CEO Wayne LaPierre.
LaPierre said some senior staffers “voluntarily” took bigger pay cuts. The group did not say how much of a pay cut LaPierre would take after recently seeing his salary rise to more than $2 million.
“Defending freedom has never been easy. Over the years, we’ve weathered more tough times than most,” LaPierre said in the leaked memo. “But we will rise from this stronger and well-positioned to lead the fight to protect our Second Amendment, the First Amendment and all our constitutional freedoms during the crucial upcoming elections and for years to come.”
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the AP that the “disruptions” caused by the coronavirus pandemic were the “primary drivers” of the cuts.
“The cancellation of the annual meeting had a significant financial impact, but beyond that, the health crisis has caused us to postpone countless fundraising and membership events along with competitions, training seminars and other revenue streams,” he said. “Like every other business and nonprofit, we are forced to make tough choices in this new economic environment.”
But while the pandemic has upended countless plans, the NRA’s problems have been exacerbated by long-running financial woes that threaten to hurt its influence in the 2020 election cycle.
“The NRA’s real problem is they had real, existing financial problems before this happened,” Robert Spitzer, the chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland, told the AP. “It simply does not bode well for their impact on the upcoming election.”
The NRA, which spent a record $30 million to help President Donald Trump’s election efforts in 2016, has seen its spending decline severely in recent years as it battles its longtime public relations firm Ackerman McQueen, the creators of the now-defunct NRATV channel, and faces a slew of investigations from attorneys general in New York and Washington, as well as Congress.
Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf told investors last week that the bank’s relationship with the NRA was “declining,” Reuters reported.
“I don’t think we participate any longer in the organization’s line of credit and mortgage loan commitments,” he told shareholders at a recent meeting.
The financial difficulties have drawn criticism from other gun rights groups.
Save the Second, a group of NRA members pushing for reforms at the organization, disputed LaPierre’s claim that it was the health crisis that led to the financial troubles.
“Mr. LaPierre, if your organization was squeaky clean and ethically ran, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place,” the group said in an email to supporters, according to the AP.
Trump has also complained that the group is “going bankrupt,” according to The New York Times, and called for it to “get its act together quickly.”
“Donald Trump talks about the Second Amendment, but he doesn’t so much talk about the NRA anymore,” Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, told Salon last week. “Some of the NRA’s own board members have distanced themselves from the NRA and major donors have begun to distance themselves from the NRA, so it’s really not surprising that Donald Trump would as well if he sees them as possibly an albatross around his neck.”
Watts pointed to the NRA’s recent losses in Virginia and in the 2018 midterms.
“If you look at the way this country has been going since the 2016 election, background checks continue to pass, red-flag laws, laws that disarm domestic abusers,” she said. “We have a 90% track record in the last five years of stopping the NRA’s agenda in state houses. So politically, they have not been as successful.”
It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, May 05, 2020
Trump admits he was briefed on coronavirus before declaring ‘hoax’ and jetting off on golf trips
May 5, 2020 By Igor Derysh, Salon
President Donald Trump admitted that he was briefed about the new coronavirus in January before calling decrying the Democrats’ “hoax” and jetting off to golf trips the following weeks.
Trump made the comment ahead of a Bloomberg News report that the intelligence community briefed the president about the virus twice in January. The Washington Post previously reported that intelligence agencies issued warnings in more than a dozen classified briefings to Trump in January and February.
Despite receiving the briefings, Trump decried media coverage sounding the alarm about the virus to be the Democrats’ “new hoax” in February and continued to travel to golf outings and rallies well into March.
Trump admitted ahead of the report that he was briefed in January, though he claimed that the briefing was not alarming. The president tweeted that he was not briefed until “late into January,” and “they only spoke of the Virus in a very non-threatening, or matter of fact, manner.” He reiterated the claim Sunday in a town hall hosted by Fox News.
“On Jan. 23, I was told that there could be a virus coming in, but it was of no real import,” Trump said. “In other words, it wasn’t: ‘Oh we gotta do something, we gotta do something.’ It was a brief conversation and it was only on Jan. 23.”
Though Trump claimed that he was told “there could be a virus coming in,” the briefing came three days after the U.S. had confirmed its first coronavirus case.
Trump also did not address why, after receiving multiple briefings, he continued to play golf at his resorts until March 8. Trump changed his tune by March 17, claiming that he “felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”
Trump’s attempt to downplay the intelligence is also contradicted by report in The Post, which revealed that agencies repeatedly highlighted the threat in more than a dozen briefings for the president because of alarm. Officials told The Post that the warnings “reflected a level of attention comparable to periods when analysts have been tracking active terrorism threats, overseas conflicts or other rapidly developing security issues.”
Despite the ongoing warnings, Trump insisted on Feb. 26 that the number of coronavirus cases “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
“It’s like a miracle,” Trump insisted that month. “It will disappear.
A day before the World Health Organization declared the virus a global pandemic on March 11, Trump said: “Just stay calm, it will go away.”
Trump told Fox News on Sunday that as many as 100,000 Americans could die from the virus, which has already killed more than 68,000 people.
“We’re going to lose anywhere from 75, 80 to 100,000 people,” Trump, who last month predicted the death toll would be “substantially below the 100,000” mark, said.
But Trump credited himself with saving millions of lives after the country imposed lockdowns, though he refused to issue any nationwide restrictions.
“If we didn’t do it, the minimum we would have lost was a million two, a million four, a million five — that’s the minimum,” he claimed. “We would have lost probably higher. It’s possible higher than 2.2.”
Even as he praised himself for the lockdowns, Trump insisted that people would be safe without them.
“People are going to be safe. We’ve learned a lot. We’ve learned about the tremendous contagion. But we have no choice: We can’t stay closed as a country. We’re not going to have a country left,” he said. “This virus will pass. It will go. Will it come back? It might. It could. Some people say, ‘Yes.’ But it will pass.”
May 5, 2020 By Igor Derysh, Salon
President Donald Trump admitted that he was briefed about the new coronavirus in January before calling decrying the Democrats’ “hoax” and jetting off to golf trips the following weeks.
Trump made the comment ahead of a Bloomberg News report that the intelligence community briefed the president about the virus twice in January. The Washington Post previously reported that intelligence agencies issued warnings in more than a dozen classified briefings to Trump in January and February.
Despite receiving the briefings, Trump decried media coverage sounding the alarm about the virus to be the Democrats’ “new hoax” in February and continued to travel to golf outings and rallies well into March.
Trump admitted ahead of the report that he was briefed in January, though he claimed that the briefing was not alarming. The president tweeted that he was not briefed until “late into January,” and “they only spoke of the Virus in a very non-threatening, or matter of fact, manner.” He reiterated the claim Sunday in a town hall hosted by Fox News.
“On Jan. 23, I was told that there could be a virus coming in, but it was of no real import,” Trump said. “In other words, it wasn’t: ‘Oh we gotta do something, we gotta do something.’ It was a brief conversation and it was only on Jan. 23.”
Though Trump claimed that he was told “there could be a virus coming in,” the briefing came three days after the U.S. had confirmed its first coronavirus case.
Trump also did not address why, after receiving multiple briefings, he continued to play golf at his resorts until March 8. Trump changed his tune by March 17, claiming that he “felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”
Trump’s attempt to downplay the intelligence is also contradicted by report in The Post, which revealed that agencies repeatedly highlighted the threat in more than a dozen briefings for the president because of alarm. Officials told The Post that the warnings “reflected a level of attention comparable to periods when analysts have been tracking active terrorism threats, overseas conflicts or other rapidly developing security issues.”
Despite the ongoing warnings, Trump insisted on Feb. 26 that the number of coronavirus cases “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
“It’s like a miracle,” Trump insisted that month. “It will disappear.
A day before the World Health Organization declared the virus a global pandemic on March 11, Trump said: “Just stay calm, it will go away.”
Trump told Fox News on Sunday that as many as 100,000 Americans could die from the virus, which has already killed more than 68,000 people.
“We’re going to lose anywhere from 75, 80 to 100,000 people,” Trump, who last month predicted the death toll would be “substantially below the 100,000” mark, said.
But Trump credited himself with saving millions of lives after the country imposed lockdowns, though he refused to issue any nationwide restrictions.
“If we didn’t do it, the minimum we would have lost was a million two, a million four, a million five — that’s the minimum,” he claimed. “We would have lost probably higher. It’s possible higher than 2.2.”
Even as he praised himself for the lockdowns, Trump insisted that people would be safe without them.
“People are going to be safe. We’ve learned a lot. We’ve learned about the tremendous contagion. But we have no choice: We can’t stay closed as a country. We’re not going to have a country left,” he said. “This virus will pass. It will go. Will it come back? It might. It could. Some people say, ‘Yes.’ But it will pass.”
Working in fear, immigrants keep US poultry plants running
May 5, 2020 By Agence France-Presse
AFP / Eric BARADAT Haitian Nurse Practitioner Nadya Julien tells AFP about the coronavirus spread in the Haitian community working in the local poultry industry in Salisbury, Maryland
Tina says a little prayer every time she heads to work at a Delaware poultry plant, a plea that this will not be the day that the invisible killer picking off her colleagues comes for her.
With the coronavirus shutting down meat plants and threatening the country’s food supply, she would rather not be there at all, but President Donald Trump has designated the sector as strategic, and low-paid workers like her as essential.
The 27-year-old mother works shifts at the Perdue packing plant in Georgetown, a major employer among the thousands of fellow Haitians settled in the area. If she wants to hold on to her job, she feels she has little choice but to clock in for her shifts, despite the risk to her and her family.
“Every day I come, I just pray to God that nothing happens,” said Tina — one of few workers who would agree to speak to a reporters, although even she declined to provide her full name for fear of reprisals.
“I want to go home, I have three kids at home, a baby, but I can’t do that,” she told AFP, speaking behind a mask. “I have no choice, bills are coming from left to right.”
With no way of knowing who might be carrying the virus, “everyone is afraid of getting sick, people still works close together.”
“They don’t tell us who has been tested positive. Was that person beside me, talking to me, you never know.”
Tina believes too little was done, too late, to protect workers like her.
“I just think that they should close a few weeks so they can clean the whole plant,” she said.
The number of coronavirus infections has recently soared in the Delmarva peninsula, which reaches south out of Delaware to eastern Maryland and the northeast of Virginia.
The poultry packing industry has thrived off the cheap labor provided by Haitians and Hispanics, but it also has meant that they have been the first to be cut down by the disease.
– Fear of hospitals-
May 5, 2020 By Agence France-Presse
AFP / Eric BARADAT Haitian Nurse Practitioner Nadya Julien tells AFP about the coronavirus spread in the Haitian community working in the local poultry industry in Salisbury, Maryland
Tina says a little prayer every time she heads to work at a Delaware poultry plant, a plea that this will not be the day that the invisible killer picking off her colleagues comes for her.
With the coronavirus shutting down meat plants and threatening the country’s food supply, she would rather not be there at all, but President Donald Trump has designated the sector as strategic, and low-paid workers like her as essential.
The 27-year-old mother works shifts at the Perdue packing plant in Georgetown, a major employer among the thousands of fellow Haitians settled in the area. If she wants to hold on to her job, she feels she has little choice but to clock in for her shifts, despite the risk to her and her family.
“Every day I come, I just pray to God that nothing happens,” said Tina — one of few workers who would agree to speak to a reporters, although even she declined to provide her full name for fear of reprisals.
“I want to go home, I have three kids at home, a baby, but I can’t do that,” she told AFP, speaking behind a mask. “I have no choice, bills are coming from left to right.”
With no way of knowing who might be carrying the virus, “everyone is afraid of getting sick, people still works close together.”
“They don’t tell us who has been tested positive. Was that person beside me, talking to me, you never know.”
Tina believes too little was done, too late, to protect workers like her.
“I just think that they should close a few weeks so they can clean the whole plant,” she said.
The number of coronavirus infections has recently soared in the Delmarva peninsula, which reaches south out of Delaware to eastern Maryland and the northeast of Virginia.
The poultry packing industry has thrived off the cheap labor provided by Haitians and Hispanics, but it also has meant that they have been the first to be cut down by the disease.
– Fear of hospitals-
AFP / Eric BARADAT A sign for the Human Resources department in the parking lot outside the Perdue Farms Chicken and poultry processing factory in Salisbury, Maryland
The small town of Salisbury, the historic base of Perdue, is home to a community of some 5,000 Haitians, at least 40 percent of whom are infected, according to Habacuc Petion, the owner of Oasis radio, which broadcasts in Creole to an estimated 20,000 listeners in the Delmarva area.
Many work for Perdue, and are refusing to stay home for fear of being sacked.
“Even if they have fever, they take a pill and go to work,” said Petion.
“COVID-19 touched home,” said the 45-year-old. “My cousin was 44, working at Perdue plant. Beginning of April, he could not breathe, his wife convinced the medics to take him to the hospital. In less than two weeks he died.”
The disease’s toll has also been boosted by a fear of hospitals and by the language barrier for many Haitians, doctors said.
The small town of Salisbury, the historic base of Perdue, is home to a community of some 5,000 Haitians, at least 40 percent of whom are infected, according to Habacuc Petion, the owner of Oasis radio, which broadcasts in Creole to an estimated 20,000 listeners in the Delmarva area.
Many work for Perdue, and are refusing to stay home for fear of being sacked.
“Even if they have fever, they take a pill and go to work,” said Petion.
“COVID-19 touched home,” said the 45-year-old. “My cousin was 44, working at Perdue plant. Beginning of April, he could not breathe, his wife convinced the medics to take him to the hospital. In less than two weeks he died.”
The disease’s toll has also been boosted by a fear of hospitals and by the language barrier for many Haitians, doctors said.
“When they see people dying in New York hospitals, the lack of material and people put in dumps, they are scared thinking they won’t receive the care they need — and end up dying,” said Nadya Julien, a Haitian nurse practitioner in Laurel, Delaware.
Some who speak Creole but little English have trouble explaining their symptoms, she said.
She herself contracted the disease and was hospitalized for six days in April, a story she tells her patients to help them overcome their fears.
– ‘Temptation’ –
Nurse practitioner Emanie Dorival said she alerted the local authorities very early to the number of cases piling up in her surgery in Seaford, Delaware.
Some who speak Creole but little English have trouble explaining their symptoms, she said.
She herself contracted the disease and was hospitalized for six days in April, a story she tells her patients to help them overcome their fears.
– ‘Temptation’ –
Nurse practitioner Emanie Dorival said she alerted the local authorities very early to the number of cases piling up in her surgery in Seaford, Delaware.
AFP / Eric BARADAT Nurse practioner Emanie Dorival said she alerted the local authorities very early to the number of cases piling up in her surgery in Seaford, Delaware
“We are a rural area,” she said. “We don’t have the capacity in our hospitals if 200 cases show up.”
While she agrees the poultry industry is “essential” she says “there is a way to keep it safe for the workers and the community.”
Several major US plants where farmers send cattle, pigs and poultry have shut due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 between employees, who are often in close proximity on production lines and on breaks.
Faced with the threat of disruption to the nation’s food supply, Trump has ordered meat and poultry plants to remain open during the pandemic that has claimed almost 70,000 lives.
Perdue has said it is doing all it can to ensure workers’ safety, taking temperatures, providing protective equipment and practicing social distancing on the production line. Where it is impossible to keep workers a safe distance apart, it said it has installed screens.
It also increased workers’ wages — which Petion described as “a temptation that a lot of people can’t resist.”
Local health authorities are meanwhile stepping up testing for the virus, with factory workers at the front of the line. In Salisbury, some 1,500 people underwent tests on Friday and Saturday at the town’s sports stadium. The results are expected this week.
“We are a rural area,” she said. “We don’t have the capacity in our hospitals if 200 cases show up.”
While she agrees the poultry industry is “essential” she says “there is a way to keep it safe for the workers and the community.”
Several major US plants where farmers send cattle, pigs and poultry have shut due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 between employees, who are often in close proximity on production lines and on breaks.
Faced with the threat of disruption to the nation’s food supply, Trump has ordered meat and poultry plants to remain open during the pandemic that has claimed almost 70,000 lives.
Perdue has said it is doing all it can to ensure workers’ safety, taking temperatures, providing protective equipment and practicing social distancing on the production line. Where it is impossible to keep workers a safe distance apart, it said it has installed screens.
It also increased workers’ wages — which Petion described as “a temptation that a lot of people can’t resist.”
Local health authorities are meanwhile stepping up testing for the virus, with factory workers at the front of the line. In Salisbury, some 1,500 people underwent tests on Friday and Saturday at the town’s sports stadium. The results are expected this week.
France refuses Amazon’s Covid-19 emergency fund request
Issued on: 04/05/2020
France's labour ministry on May 5, 2020 denied a request by Amazon for emergency coronavirus funds.
France's labour ministry on Monday refused a request by Amazon for emergency funds to pay its employees during the coronavirus crisis, after the retail giant shut its warehouses over a French court ruling ordering the company to deliver only essential goods until its health protocols were revised.
The ministry said Amazon France had asked to benefit from coronavirus crisis funds that cover about 84 percent of net pay for workers facing temporary layoffs because of a drop in business.
Amazon France confirmed it sought the funds to cover salaries for some 10,000 employees at its six main distribution sites in the country.
The online retailer has been locked in a battle with labour unions which say not enough was done to mitigate contagion risk for staff working in close proximity to process a flood of orders amid the nationwide lockdown, which saw traditional shops shuttered.
Last month, an appeals court upheld a ruling that sharply curtailed Amazon's operations and ordered management to review safety measures. The court said only digital products, office equipment, groceries, medical and personal care products could be delivered in the meantime.
But Amazon said it was impossible to comply with the order, and completely shut down the six sites from mid-April until May 5, though it maintained full pay for employees.
Amazon France confirmed it sought the funds to cover salaries for some 10,000 employees at its six main distribution sites in the country.
The online retailer has been locked in a battle with labour unions which say not enough was done to mitigate contagion risk for staff working in close proximity to process a flood of orders amid the nationwide lockdown, which saw traditional shops shuttered.
Last month, an appeals court upheld a ruling that sharply curtailed Amazon's operations and ordered management to review safety measures. The court said only digital products, office equipment, groceries, medical and personal care products could be delivered in the meantime.
But Amazon said it was impossible to comply with the order, and completely shut down the six sites from mid-April until May 5, though it maintained full pay for employees.
All French fulfillment centres shut
"The recent decision by the Court of Versailles has obviously had an impact on our French operations... As a result, we filed for the help that other companies in France have benefited from," the company said in a statement.
"Our logistics operations are technically complex and the court's fine of 100,000 euros ($109,000) for any infraction means that even accidental shipping of non-authorised products, on the order of 0.1 percent of the total, could lead to over one billion euros of fines per week," it said.
The world's largest online retailer is facing mounting scrutiny as it juggles a surge in online orders during government lockdowns to curb the pandemic and employees' safety, and France has become a major battleground.
France is the only country where Amazon has shut all of its so-called fulfillment centres after unions complained that they were still too crowded and filed a legal challenge.
'Absolutely scandalous'
Unions called Amazon's request for employment aid "absolutely scandalous" and accused the firm of getting around the court order by fulfilling French orders from its other warehouses in Europe.
Dozens of employees had staged walkouts at several sites before the ruling to demand better workplace protection during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Amazon reported last week that despite a surge in orders worldwide because of virus lockdowns, its profit dropped 29 percent in the first quarter of this year, to $2.5 billion, because of Covid-19 expenses, including measures for "keeping employees safe".
The company is in the process of recruiting some 175,000 more employees to cope with surging demand.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP and REUTERS)
"The recent decision by the Court of Versailles has obviously had an impact on our French operations... As a result, we filed for the help that other companies in France have benefited from," the company said in a statement.
"Our logistics operations are technically complex and the court's fine of 100,000 euros ($109,000) for any infraction means that even accidental shipping of non-authorised products, on the order of 0.1 percent of the total, could lead to over one billion euros of fines per week," it said.
The world's largest online retailer is facing mounting scrutiny as it juggles a surge in online orders during government lockdowns to curb the pandemic and employees' safety, and France has become a major battleground.
France is the only country where Amazon has shut all of its so-called fulfillment centres after unions complained that they were still too crowded and filed a legal challenge.
'Absolutely scandalous'
Unions called Amazon's request for employment aid "absolutely scandalous" and accused the firm of getting around the court order by fulfilling French orders from its other warehouses in Europe.
Dozens of employees had staged walkouts at several sites before the ruling to demand better workplace protection during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Amazon reported last week that despite a surge in orders worldwide because of virus lockdowns, its profit dropped 29 percent in the first quarter of this year, to $2.5 billion, because of Covid-19 expenses, including measures for "keeping employees safe".
The company is in the process of recruiting some 175,000 more employees to cope with surging demand.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP and REUTERS)
Top Russian newspaper fights for survival amid censorship row
The staff at "Vedomosti" are defying the paper's new editor-in-chief, who they say is undermining the publication's journalistic independence. Now the conflict is threatening the media outlet's funding as well.
Tensions reportedly started right after the first staff meeting with the new editor-in-chief of Vedomosti. Since Andrey Shmarov started in the job at the end of March, journalists at the paper say he banned them from writing about Vladimir Putin's controversial constitutional reforms, which could keep the Russian president in power far beyond his current term limit. Apparently he also told them not to cite surveys by the independent pollster Levada Center, an accusation Shmarov has denied. The editor has also deleted a column about the Russian oil giant Rosneft and changed the title of another column.
Vedomosti media editor Ksenya Boletskaya tells DW that many of the steps caused a "violent emotional reaction" in the team, which values its editorial independence above all. Vedomosti staff began openly defying Shmarov. In an editorial, staff wrote that his editorial changes "are damaging trust in the publication," accusing Shmarov of censorship. Without the journalistic principles its reputation is based on, they wrote, Vedomosti will become "yet another dependent and controlled media outlet," adding: "There are enough of those already in Russia."
Read more: Death threats against Russian journalist
Boletskaya says that many of the paper's readers have commented under articles that they plan to unsubscribe from Vedomosti because they are no longer sure of its "independence and transparency." Shmarov himself told the Financial Times (FT), which used to co-own the paper along with The Wall Street Journal, that he was not "at war" with staff and hoped he could improve his relationship with his team.
Shmarov was put at the helm of the paper after its publisher made a deal to sell it to new owners. But the FT has cited sources saying the scandal has led one of the buyers to pull out of the deal, which could leave the paper in freefall. So far the lockdown has also delayed paperwork needed to complete the deal.
Now the paper is in a strange sort of limbo. Not only is it no longer clear who owns it, but Vedomosti was recently excluded from a government list of essential companies that will receive support during the crisis caused by the new coronavirus.
Read more: Coronavirus latest: Russia reports record 10,000 new cases
Russia's deputy communications minister Aleksey Volin has said that the decision to exclude the paper from the list was partially to do with the ongoing conflict within the paper. He compared the editorial team with a bus with no driver, where several people are fighting for the wheel. "That is not the symbol of an essential business at all."
According to media expert and publisher Ivan Zassoursky, if Vedomosti has to close, the Russian media would be losing a publication that has been "a rare standout on the media market," a newspaper with "with its own voice, its own editorial policies which are strictly adhered to."
He thinks that with the loud debates about the editorial line and funding of the paper, it "could lose its halo as the main business newspaper." Zassoursky tells DW that receiving government funding could help save the paper, especially as the coronavirus has cut into its income from conferences and events — but it would also harm the independent reputation of Vedomosti.
Vedomosti editor Boletskaya also insists that the paper is an "institution," one of the big players that have access to important government officials but don't dance to their tune.
Vedomosti was founded in 1999 and has since remained independent despite censorship having slowly increased under Vladimir Putin. Television in Russia is almost completely state-controlled and in recent years many media outlets, including Vedomosti's main competitors, like business daily RBC, have seen their editors replaced with more pro-government figures. Last year, another of Russia's big business papers, Kommersant, saw its entire political department walk out after a new editor-in-chief fired two journalists for reporting about a potential reshuffle in Russia's upper house of parliament.
Kremlin control?
When it comes to the sale of Vedomosti, media expert Zassoursky argues that the new owners must be aiming to exert political influence there as well. With the newspaper industry dying, he says he can see no other reason why people would buy a paper like Vedomosti.
With the outrage about the paper's new editor Andrey Shmarov, both the former owners of the paper and the new buyers have refused to take responsibility for hiring him. Meanwhile the critical online platform Meduza has cited sources saying the new editor is a "candidate of the presidential administration."
The Kremlin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, has denied this and has said that censorship is unacceptable. "We are interested in the newspaper Vedomosti continuing its work on its current highly professional level."
Ilya Graschenkov of the Center for the Development of Regional Politics tells DW that "this conflict is very uncomfortable for the Kremlin." But the independent political analyst suspects the origins of the conflict over Vedomosti are likely part of a power struggle that does not come directly from the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Vedomosti editor Boletskaya sees the growing pressure on the paper as part of a wider trend. She says that as many other big liberal media outlets were closed or brought into line, Vedomosti "stood out too much." "We almost look like we are the opposition," she explains, while emphasizing that her opinions don't represent those of the whole team.
Boletskaya says some of her colleagues have already decided to leave the paper. As a media expert, she isn't optimistic about the future of Vedomosti as it faces economic and political pressures. But she is one of many at the paper who are prepared to keep fighting. "We value this newspaper so much — not even for ourselves but for our readers. So we want to do everything to ensure it keeps reporting."
Date 04.05.2020
Author Emily Sherwin
The staff at "Vedomosti" are defying the paper's new editor-in-chief, who they say is undermining the publication's journalistic independence. Now the conflict is threatening the media outlet's funding as well.
Tensions reportedly started right after the first staff meeting with the new editor-in-chief of Vedomosti. Since Andrey Shmarov started in the job at the end of March, journalists at the paper say he banned them from writing about Vladimir Putin's controversial constitutional reforms, which could keep the Russian president in power far beyond his current term limit. Apparently he also told them not to cite surveys by the independent pollster Levada Center, an accusation Shmarov has denied. The editor has also deleted a column about the Russian oil giant Rosneft and changed the title of another column.
Vedomosti media editor Ksenya Boletskaya tells DW that many of the steps caused a "violent emotional reaction" in the team, which values its editorial independence above all. Vedomosti staff began openly defying Shmarov. In an editorial, staff wrote that his editorial changes "are damaging trust in the publication," accusing Shmarov of censorship. Without the journalistic principles its reputation is based on, they wrote, Vedomosti will become "yet another dependent and controlled media outlet," adding: "There are enough of those already in Russia."
Read more: Death threats against Russian journalist
Boletskaya says that many of the paper's readers have commented under articles that they plan to unsubscribe from Vedomosti because they are no longer sure of its "independence and transparency." Shmarov himself told the Financial Times (FT), which used to co-own the paper along with The Wall Street Journal, that he was not "at war" with staff and hoped he could improve his relationship with his team.
Shmarov was put at the helm of the paper after its publisher made a deal to sell it to new owners. But the FT has cited sources saying the scandal has led one of the buyers to pull out of the deal, which could leave the paper in freefall. So far the lockdown has also delayed paperwork needed to complete the deal.
Now the paper is in a strange sort of limbo. Not only is it no longer clear who owns it, but Vedomosti was recently excluded from a government list of essential companies that will receive support during the crisis caused by the new coronavirus.
Read more: Coronavirus latest: Russia reports record 10,000 new cases
Russia's deputy communications minister Aleksey Volin has said that the decision to exclude the paper from the list was partially to do with the ongoing conflict within the paper. He compared the editorial team with a bus with no driver, where several people are fighting for the wheel. "That is not the symbol of an essential business at all."
According to media expert and publisher Ivan Zassoursky, if Vedomosti has to close, the Russian media would be losing a publication that has been "a rare standout on the media market," a newspaper with "with its own voice, its own editorial policies which are strictly adhered to."
He thinks that with the loud debates about the editorial line and funding of the paper, it "could lose its halo as the main business newspaper." Zassoursky tells DW that receiving government funding could help save the paper, especially as the coronavirus has cut into its income from conferences and events — but it would also harm the independent reputation of Vedomosti.
Vedomosti editor Boletskaya also insists that the paper is an "institution," one of the big players that have access to important government officials but don't dance to their tune.
Vedomosti was founded in 1999 and has since remained independent despite censorship having slowly increased under Vladimir Putin. Television in Russia is almost completely state-controlled and in recent years many media outlets, including Vedomosti's main competitors, like business daily RBC, have seen their editors replaced with more pro-government figures. Last year, another of Russia's big business papers, Kommersant, saw its entire political department walk out after a new editor-in-chief fired two journalists for reporting about a potential reshuffle in Russia's upper house of parliament.
Kremlin control?
When it comes to the sale of Vedomosti, media expert Zassoursky argues that the new owners must be aiming to exert political influence there as well. With the newspaper industry dying, he says he can see no other reason why people would buy a paper like Vedomosti.
With the outrage about the paper's new editor Andrey Shmarov, both the former owners of the paper and the new buyers have refused to take responsibility for hiring him. Meanwhile the critical online platform Meduza has cited sources saying the new editor is a "candidate of the presidential administration."
The Kremlin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, has denied this and has said that censorship is unacceptable. "We are interested in the newspaper Vedomosti continuing its work on its current highly professional level."
Ilya Graschenkov of the Center for the Development of Regional Politics tells DW that "this conflict is very uncomfortable for the Kremlin." But the independent political analyst suspects the origins of the conflict over Vedomosti are likely part of a power struggle that does not come directly from the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Vedomosti editor Boletskaya sees the growing pressure on the paper as part of a wider trend. She says that as many other big liberal media outlets were closed or brought into line, Vedomosti "stood out too much." "We almost look like we are the opposition," she explains, while emphasizing that her opinions don't represent those of the whole team.
Boletskaya says some of her colleagues have already decided to leave the paper. As a media expert, she isn't optimistic about the future of Vedomosti as it faces economic and political pressures. But she is one of many at the paper who are prepared to keep fighting. "We value this newspaper so much — not even for ourselves but for our readers. So we want to do everything to ensure it keeps reporting."
Date 04.05.2020
Author Emily Sherwin
WHO says no proof from US on ‘speculative’ claims virus came from Wuhan lab
Text by:NEWS WIRES
The World Health Organization said Monday that Washington had provided no evidence to support "speculative" claims by the US president that the new coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab.
"We have not received any data or specific evidence from the United States government relating to the purported origin of the virus – so from our perspective, this remains speculative," WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan told a virtual briefing.
Scientists believe the killer virus jumped from animals to humans, emerging in China late last year, possibly from a market in Wuhan selling exotic animals for meat.
Top US epidemiologist Anthony Fauci echoed the WHO's statement in an interview published Monday evening by National Geographic.
"If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, (the scientific evidence) is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated," Fauci told the magazine.
Science at the centre
The UN health agency – which has also faced scathing criticism from Trump over accusations it initially downplayed the seriousness of the outbreak to shield China – has repeatedly said the virus clearly appears to have originated naturally from an animal source.
WHO expert Maria Van Kerkhove stressed during Monday's briefing that there were some 15,000 full genome sequences of the novel coronavirus available, and "from all of the evidence that we have seen... this virus is of natural origin."While coronaviruses generally originate in bats, both Van Kerkhove and Ryan stressed the importance of discovering how the virus that causes COVID-19 crossed over to humans, and what animal served as an "intermediary host" along the way.
"We need to understand more about that natural origin, and particularly about intermediate hosts," Ryan said.
It was important to know "so that we can put in place the right public health and animal-human interface policies that will prevent this happening again," he stressed.
>> Covid-19: How scientists are keeping politics out of the global race for a vaccine
The WHO said last week it wanted to be invited to take part in Chinese investigations into the animal origins of the pandemic, which in a matter of months has killed more than 250,000 people worldwide.
"We have offered, as we do with every case in every country, assistance with carrying out those investigations," Ryan said Monday.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is "assured that this virus is natural in origin". © Fabrice Coffrini, AFP/File
Text by:NEWS WIRES
The World Health Organization said Monday that Washington had provided no evidence to support "speculative" claims by the US president that the new coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab.
"We have not received any data or specific evidence from the United States government relating to the purported origin of the virus – so from our perspective, this remains speculative," WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan told a virtual briefing.
Scientists believe the killer virus jumped from animals to humans, emerging in China late last year, possibly from a market in Wuhan selling exotic animals for meat.
Top US epidemiologist Anthony Fauci echoed the WHO's statement in an interview published Monday evening by National Geographic.
"If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, (the scientific evidence) is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated," Fauci told the magazine.
"Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that (this virus) evolved in nature and then jumped species," he said.
And US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday said "enormous evidence" backed up that claim, although the US intelligence community last week said it would continue to study whether the outbreak stemmed from infected animal contact, or a lab accident.
China has vehemently denied suggestions the lab was the source.
"Like any evidence-based organization, we would be very willing to receive any information that purports to the origin of the virus," Ryan said, stressing that this was "a very important piece of public health information for future control.
"If that data and evidence is available, then it will be for the United States government to decide whether and when it can be shared, but it is difficult for the WHO to operate in an information vacuum in that regard," he added.
US President Donald Trump, increasingly critical of China's management of the outbreak, claims to have proof it started in a Wuhan laboratory.
BREAKING: #Fauci in exclusive @NatGeo interview today: No scientific evidence the #coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab.He also warns against reopening states too fast, and says we must spend summer prepping tests, ventilators & PPE for fall wave https://t.co/FrCGOhg2gT— Indira Lakshmanan (@Indira_L) May 5, 2020
And US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday said "enormous evidence" backed up that claim, although the US intelligence community last week said it would continue to study whether the outbreak stemmed from infected animal contact, or a lab accident.
China has vehemently denied suggestions the lab was the source.
"Like any evidence-based organization, we would be very willing to receive any information that purports to the origin of the virus," Ryan said, stressing that this was "a very important piece of public health information for future control.
"If that data and evidence is available, then it will be for the United States government to decide whether and when it can be shared, but it is difficult for the WHO to operate in an information vacuum in that regard," he added.
Science at the centre
The UN health agency – which has also faced scathing criticism from Trump over accusations it initially downplayed the seriousness of the outbreak to shield China – has repeatedly said the virus clearly appears to have originated naturally from an animal source.
WHO expert Maria Van Kerkhove stressed during Monday's briefing that there were some 15,000 full genome sequences of the novel coronavirus available, and "from all of the evidence that we have seen... this virus is of natural origin."While coronaviruses generally originate in bats, both Van Kerkhove and Ryan stressed the importance of discovering how the virus that causes COVID-19 crossed over to humans, and what animal served as an "intermediary host" along the way.
"We need to understand more about that natural origin, and particularly about intermediate hosts," Ryan said.
It was important to know "so that we can put in place the right public health and animal-human interface policies that will prevent this happening again," he stressed.
>> Covid-19: How scientists are keeping politics out of the global race for a vaccine
The WHO said last week it wanted to be invited to take part in Chinese investigations into the animal origins of the pandemic, which in a matter of months has killed more than 250,000 people worldwide.
"We have offered, as we do with every case in every country, assistance with carrying out those investigations," Ryan said Monday.
Daily news briefReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe
"We can learn from Chinese scientists," he said.
But he warned that if questions about the virus's origin were "projected as aggressive investigation of wrongdoing, than I believe that's much more difficult to deal with. That is a political issue.
"Science needs to be at the centre," he said.
"If we have a science-based investigation and a science-based enquiry as to what the origin species and the intermediate species are, then that will benefit everybody on the planet."
(AFP)
The World Health Organization chief said Monday that the agency had sounded the highest level of alarm over the novel coronavirus early on, but lamented that not all countries had heeded its advice.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed out that the WHO warned the COVID-19 outbreak constituted a 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern' on January 30, when there were only 82 cases registered outside China.
"The world should have listened to WHO then carefully," he told a virtual press briefing.
"We can learn from Chinese scientists," he said.
But he warned that if questions about the virus's origin were "projected as aggressive investigation of wrongdoing, than I believe that's much more difficult to deal with. That is a political issue.
"Science needs to be at the centre," he said.
"If we have a science-based investigation and a science-based enquiry as to what the origin species and the intermediate species are, then that will benefit everybody on the planet."
(AFP)
The World Health Organization chief said Monday that the agency had sounded the highest level of alarm over the novel coronavirus early on, but lamented that not all countries had heeded its advice.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed out that the WHO warned the COVID-19 outbreak constituted a 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern' on January 30, when there were only 82 cases registered outside China.
"The world should have listened to WHO then carefully," he told a virtual press briefing.
THE INFLUENZA KILLED 675,000 AMERICANS
1918 Flu Pandemic Came From A Bird
APRIL 14, 2020 BY | T. E. MCMORROW
1918 Flu Pandemic Came From A Bird
APRIL 14, 2020 BY | T. E. MCMORROW
AN EMERGENCY HOSPITAL DURING THE 1918 INFLUENZA IN KANSAS.
THE INFLUENZA KILLED 675,000 AMERICANS
A mysterious, very contagious, and lethal virus that had crossed over to humans from an animal spread quickly across Europe, and then the United States, leaving mass casualties in its wake. American officials, along with some members of the press, initially downplayed the significance of the 1918 influenza pandemic, promising it would soon go away. The public was told by some officials they should go about business as usual.
As the lethality of the virus became clear, with death resulting from pneumonia-like conditions as a result of the disease, officials delayed closing institutions, then pushed to have them reopened.
Protective equipment was in short supply, doctors and nurses became ill and died, and the country’s surgeon general gave the American people a lesson on how to make cloth face masks to help stop the contagion.
Sound familiar? This pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish influenza, although that origin was eventually debunked, closely mirrors the world’s current fight against COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website described the 1918 pandemic as being caused “by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin.” It came from a bird.
Europe was consumed by what was then known as The Great War, now called World War I. The United States joined the fight in April 1917, taking sides with France, England, and Belgium. Russia dropped out of the Allied Forces effort after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Their chief opponents were the nations now known as Germany, Austria, and Turkey.
The Independent has examined the reporting in every issue of The New York Times, and local newspapers, like The East Hampton Star from that year.
In 1918, The Times was an advocate for the war effort and the President Woodrow Wilson administration. The war dominated its front page daily with every one topped by a banner headline proclaiming the day’s events on the battlefield. The influenza never made it to the front page once, despite the fact that the disease would go on to kill roughly 675,000 Americans, as reported by the CDC. According to the organization, “about 500 million people, or one-third of the world’s population, became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide.”
Of the 116,516 American troops who died in the war, over 63,000 of them were killed by the flu.
Molly Billings, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, wrote about the pandemic in 1997, the year she obtained her BA from Stanford University.
THE INFLUENZA KILLED 675,000 AMERICANS
A mysterious, very contagious, and lethal virus that had crossed over to humans from an animal spread quickly across Europe, and then the United States, leaving mass casualties in its wake. American officials, along with some members of the press, initially downplayed the significance of the 1918 influenza pandemic, promising it would soon go away. The public was told by some officials they should go about business as usual.
As the lethality of the virus became clear, with death resulting from pneumonia-like conditions as a result of the disease, officials delayed closing institutions, then pushed to have them reopened.
Protective equipment was in short supply, doctors and nurses became ill and died, and the country’s surgeon general gave the American people a lesson on how to make cloth face masks to help stop the contagion.
Sound familiar? This pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish influenza, although that origin was eventually debunked, closely mirrors the world’s current fight against COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website described the 1918 pandemic as being caused “by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin.” It came from a bird.
Europe was consumed by what was then known as The Great War, now called World War I. The United States joined the fight in April 1917, taking sides with France, England, and Belgium. Russia dropped out of the Allied Forces effort after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Their chief opponents were the nations now known as Germany, Austria, and Turkey.
The Independent has examined the reporting in every issue of The New York Times, and local newspapers, like The East Hampton Star from that year.
In 1918, The Times was an advocate for the war effort and the President Woodrow Wilson administration. The war dominated its front page daily with every one topped by a banner headline proclaiming the day’s events on the battlefield. The influenza never made it to the front page once, despite the fact that the disease would go on to kill roughly 675,000 Americans, as reported by the CDC. According to the organization, “about 500 million people, or one-third of the world’s population, became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide.”
Of the 116,516 American troops who died in the war, over 63,000 of them were killed by the flu.
Molly Billings, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, wrote about the pandemic in 1997, the year she obtained her BA from Stanford University.
“The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5 percent, compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1 percent,” she said. “Most of humanity felt the effects of this strain of the influenza virus. It spread following the path of its human carriers, along trade routes and shipping lines. Outbreaks swept through North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil, and the South Pacific. In India, the mortality rate was extremely high, at around 50 deaths from influenza per 1000 people.”
It’s not known where the disease made the jump from bird to human, but it likely was not from Spain. While the rest of Europe was engaged in an all-out war, Spain was on the sideline. Information from the war-consumed nations was being censored, but not from Spain. The first mention of Spanish influenza appeared in The New York Times on June 21, 1918. The story is sourced from an unnamed Dutch traveler, just returning from Germany.
“Spain Affected by German Sickness and Other Countries Will Be, Says Hollander,” the headline on the story reads. “‘The mysterious sickness, now prevalent in Spain, comes from Germany and will doubtless soon reach other countries,’ said a Dutch tailor who recently returned from Germany.”
On June 25 and June 27, The Times reported that German troops were infected by disease.
It’s not known where the disease made the jump from bird to human, but it likely was not from Spain. While the rest of Europe was engaged in an all-out war, Spain was on the sideline. Information from the war-consumed nations was being censored, but not from Spain. The first mention of Spanish influenza appeared in The New York Times on June 21, 1918. The story is sourced from an unnamed Dutch traveler, just returning from Germany.
“Spain Affected by German Sickness and Other Countries Will Be, Says Hollander,” the headline on the story reads. “‘The mysterious sickness, now prevalent in Spain, comes from Germany and will doubtless soon reach other countries,’ said a Dutch tailor who recently returned from Germany.”
On June 25 and June 27, The Times reported that German troops were infected by disease.
“Spanish Influenza is Raging in the German Army,” a June 27 headline read. “LONDON, June 26: Influenza is now epidemic all along the German front, according to advices received from the Dutch frontier, and the prevalence of this ailment is said to be hampering the preparations for offensive operations.”
On June 28, dateline Washington, D.C., The Times reported that the “epidemic is not regarded here as having serious proportions. It is clear that the soldier who has it is incapacitated for duty, and thousands may be down with the disease at once, so that military movements may be delayed.”
“The American troops have at no time shown any form of the disease,” the story reported. “Precautions have already been ordered, however, to meet any emergency.”
On July 3, a Spanish ship came to an American port, and was fumigated, a story reports. On July 11, kaiser Wilhelm II, the leader of Germany at the time, was reported to have fallen ill with the disease, and had to leave the western front of the war.
All along, Americans were promised that the disease could never hit home.
This is the first installment of a three-part series on the influenza pandemic of 1918.
t.e@indyeastend.com
A mysterious, very contagious, and lethal virus that had crossed over to humans from an animal spread quickly across Europe, and then the United States, leaving mass casualties in its wake. American officials, along with some members of the press, initially downplayed the significance of the 1918 influenza pandemic, promising it would soon go away. The public was told by some officials they should go about business as usual.
As the lethality of the virus became clear, with death resulting from pneumonia-like conditions as a result of the disease, officials delayed closing institutions, then pushed to have them reopened.
Protective equipment was in short supply, doctors and nurses became ill and died, and the country’s surgeon general gave the American people a lesson on how to make cloth face masks to help stop the contagion.
Sound familiar? This pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish influenza, although that origin was eventually debunked, closely mirrors the world’s current fight against COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website described the 1918 pandemic as being caused “by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin.” It came from a bird.
Europe was consumed by what was then known as The Great War, now called World War I. The United States joined the fight in April 1917, taking sides with France, England, and Belgium. Russia dropped out of the Allied Forces effort after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Their chief opponents were the nations now known as Germany, Austria, and Turkey.
The Independent has examined the reporting in every issue of The New York Times, and local newspapers, like The East Hampton Star from that year.
In 1918, The Times was an advocate for the war effort and the President Woodrow Wilson administration. The war dominated its front page daily with every one topped by a banner headline proclaiming the day’s events on the battlefield. The influenza never made it to the front page once, despite the fact that the disease would go on to kill roughly 675,000 Americans, as reported by the CDC. According to the organization, “about 500 million people, or one-third of the world’s population, became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide.”
Of the 116,516 American troops who died in the war, over 63,000 of them were killed by the flu.
Molly Billings, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, wrote about the pandemic in 1997, the year she obtained her BA from Stanford University.
“The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5 percent, compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1 percent,” she said. “Most of humanity felt the effects of this strain of the influenza virus. It spread following the path of its human carriers, along trade routes and shipping lines. Outbreaks swept through North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil, and the South Pacific. In India, the mortality rate was extremely high, at around 50 deaths from influenza per 1000 people.”
It’s not known where the disease made the jump from bird to human, but it likely was not from Spain. While the rest of Europe was engaged in an all-out war, Spain was on the sideline. Information from the war-consumed nations was being censored, but not from Spain. The first mention of Spanish influenza appeared in The New York Times on June 21, 1918. The story is sourced from an unnamed Dutch traveler, just returning from Germany.
“Spain Affected by German Sickness and Other Countries Will Be, Says Hollander,” the headline on the story reads. “‘The mysterious sickness, now prevalent in Spain, comes from Germany and will doubtless soon reach other countries,’ said a Dutch tailor who recently returned from Germany.”
On June 25 and June 27, The Times reported that German troops were infected by disease.
“Spanish Influenza is Raging in the German Army,” a June 27 headline read. “LONDON, June 26: Influenza is now epidemic all along the German front, according to advices received from the Dutch frontier, and the prevalence of this ailment is said to be hampering the preparations for offensive operations.”
On June 28, dateline Washington, D.C., The Times reported that the “epidemic is not regarded here as having serious proportions. It is clear that the soldier who has it is incapacitated for duty, and thousands may be down with the disease at once, so that military movements may be delayed.”
“The American troops have at no time shown any form of the disease,” the story reported. “Precautions have already been ordered, however, to meet any emergency.”
On July 3, a Spanish ship came to an American port, and was fumigated, a story reports. On July 11, kaiser Wilhelm II, the leader of Germany at the time, was reported to have fallen ill with the disease, and had to leave the western front of the war.
All along, Americans were promised that the disease could never hit home.
This is the first installment of a three-part series on the influenza pandemic of 1918.
t.e@indyeastend.com
On June 28, dateline Washington, D.C., The Times reported that the “epidemic is not regarded here as having serious proportions. It is clear that the soldier who has it is incapacitated for duty, and thousands may be down with the disease at once, so that military movements may be delayed.”
“The American troops have at no time shown any form of the disease,” the story reported. “Precautions have already been ordered, however, to meet any emergency.”
On July 3, a Spanish ship came to an American port, and was fumigated, a story reports. On July 11, kaiser Wilhelm II, the leader of Germany at the time, was reported to have fallen ill with the disease, and had to leave the western front of the war.
All along, Americans were promised that the disease could never hit home.
This is the first installment of a three-part series on the influenza pandemic of 1918.
t.e@indyeastend.com
A mysterious, very contagious, and lethal virus that had crossed over to humans from an animal spread quickly across Europe, and then the United States, leaving mass casualties in its wake. American officials, along with some members of the press, initially downplayed the significance of the 1918 influenza pandemic, promising it would soon go away. The public was told by some officials they should go about business as usual.
As the lethality of the virus became clear, with death resulting from pneumonia-like conditions as a result of the disease, officials delayed closing institutions, then pushed to have them reopened.
Protective equipment was in short supply, doctors and nurses became ill and died, and the country’s surgeon general gave the American people a lesson on how to make cloth face masks to help stop the contagion.
Sound familiar? This pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish influenza, although that origin was eventually debunked, closely mirrors the world’s current fight against COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website described the 1918 pandemic as being caused “by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin.” It came from a bird.
Europe was consumed by what was then known as The Great War, now called World War I. The United States joined the fight in April 1917, taking sides with France, England, and Belgium. Russia dropped out of the Allied Forces effort after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Their chief opponents were the nations now known as Germany, Austria, and Turkey.
The Independent has examined the reporting in every issue of The New York Times, and local newspapers, like The East Hampton Star from that year.
In 1918, The Times was an advocate for the war effort and the President Woodrow Wilson administration. The war dominated its front page daily with every one topped by a banner headline proclaiming the day’s events on the battlefield. The influenza never made it to the front page once, despite the fact that the disease would go on to kill roughly 675,000 Americans, as reported by the CDC. According to the organization, “about 500 million people, or one-third of the world’s population, became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide.”
Of the 116,516 American troops who died in the war, over 63,000 of them were killed by the flu.
Molly Billings, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, wrote about the pandemic in 1997, the year she obtained her BA from Stanford University.
“The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5 percent, compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1 percent,” she said. “Most of humanity felt the effects of this strain of the influenza virus. It spread following the path of its human carriers, along trade routes and shipping lines. Outbreaks swept through North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil, and the South Pacific. In India, the mortality rate was extremely high, at around 50 deaths from influenza per 1000 people.”
It’s not known where the disease made the jump from bird to human, but it likely was not from Spain. While the rest of Europe was engaged in an all-out war, Spain was on the sideline. Information from the war-consumed nations was being censored, but not from Spain. The first mention of Spanish influenza appeared in The New York Times on June 21, 1918. The story is sourced from an unnamed Dutch traveler, just returning from Germany.
“Spain Affected by German Sickness and Other Countries Will Be, Says Hollander,” the headline on the story reads. “‘The mysterious sickness, now prevalent in Spain, comes from Germany and will doubtless soon reach other countries,’ said a Dutch tailor who recently returned from Germany.”
On June 25 and June 27, The Times reported that German troops were infected by disease.
“Spanish Influenza is Raging in the German Army,” a June 27 headline read. “LONDON, June 26: Influenza is now epidemic all along the German front, according to advices received from the Dutch frontier, and the prevalence of this ailment is said to be hampering the preparations for offensive operations.”
On June 28, dateline Washington, D.C., The Times reported that the “epidemic is not regarded here as having serious proportions. It is clear that the soldier who has it is incapacitated for duty, and thousands may be down with the disease at once, so that military movements may be delayed.”
“The American troops have at no time shown any form of the disease,” the story reported. “Precautions have already been ordered, however, to meet any emergency.”
On July 3, a Spanish ship came to an American port, and was fumigated, a story reports. On July 11, kaiser Wilhelm II, the leader of Germany at the time, was reported to have fallen ill with the disease, and had to leave the western front of the war.
All along, Americans were promised that the disease could never hit home.
This is the first installment of a three-part series on the influenza pandemic of 1918.
t.e@indyeastend.com
Canadian Government’s Belated Response to COVID-19
By Bill Hopwood-April 23, 2020 Socialist Alternative (ISA in Canada)
On January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that governments should be preparing immediately and taking precautions due to the virus. On February 24, the increasing number of cases outside China spurred the WHO to warn that the virus could become a global pandemic, and that all countries should prepare. On February 27, the WHO increased its assessment of the global risk of the outbreak to “very high.”
The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Canada was a patient in Toronto on January 27. What did Canada do? For a month, very little. At the end of February, it was still only issuing travel advisories to South Korea and China. On March 11, the government of Canada announced a $1 billion COVID-19 Response Fund, with an assurance from the Prime Minister “that we have your back and we will get through this together.”
On March 16, the government recommended that Canadians avoid non-essential travel outside the country, that Canadian travelers return to Canada, and all travelers to Canada self-isolate for 14 days upon entry, with exceptions for workers (including truck drives, train crews, airline staff, etc.) who are essential to the movement of goods and people. On March 18, all foreign nationals, except from the US, were barred from entering Canada.
On many fronts the Canadian government was and is slow to act and on other fronts it has taken no action at all.
Only on March 31 did the Canadian government announce, after weeks of “talking,” it had agreed to purchase testing kits, portable ventilators, hand sanitizer, and protective apparel from several Canadian companies. This is an emergency. It is not the time for weeks of negotiations with profit-driven private firms ‒ it is the time for action! Even now many essential workers lack proper protection.
Testing in some parts of Canada, especially Ontario, is far behind what is needed. Again, it was known for weeks that widespread testing was vital. On March 16, the WHO stated, “We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.” The tests are fairly straightforward, and many laboratories could carry them out.
Many construction sites around the country continue to operate. It is almost impossible to work safely while keeping six feet apart; Safe Work requirements mean workers have to stand closer. Scandalously, construction of the Canadian government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline continues. Work continues to build the Site C dam for the provincially-owned BC Hydro. The Site C work camp has nearly 1,000 workers with reports that up to 200 workers ate in a dining hall at one time. Neither meals or work allow for proper physical distance. Already ten workers are in isolation with COVID-19 symptoms. The local communities need and want these sites closed as an outbreak would overwhelm their health facilities.
Homeless people continue to sleep rough, putting themselves and the community at high risk of spreading the virus. Many people live in overcrowded housing and cannot physically isolate. The lack of shelter spaces for people fleeing violence and abuse in their homes was a scandal before COVID-19. Now it can be a death sentence. Government action has been weak or non-existent.
Many in essential services are working long hours for low pay, with many of these, including cleaners, grocery store workers and workers in care homes making only or just above the minimum wage. They need more than cheers at 7pm. The minimum wage for all in Canada must be raised to $15 an hour and essential workers should have at least $2 an hour extra pay. They also need protective clothing, child care, and time off to recover.
One of the first waves of death in North America started in late February in a Washington state seniors’ home that killed 35. The first death at Lynn Valley Care Home was on March 8. Yet, more than five weeks later, Canadian seniors’ homes are still centers of death. The lessons from this early carnage have not been acted upon. Test all patients and staff, ensure space for isolating and bring seniors’ homes into the public sector with well-paid full-time staff, eliminating the need for care givers to work at more than one institution to make ends meet.
The internet is an essential service during COVID-19. People are at home but need to contact Service Canada, companies and services and to stay socially connected, vital for mental health in these trying times. Yet many people cannot afford the internet. Canada’s internet and phone charges are notoriously high. The big companies should be taken into public ownership to provide a vital public service.
Canadian banks have been given $150 billion, through CHMC’s purchase of mortgages, and interest rates are near zero. But still banks have not slashed or abolished credit card interest rates across the board and their mortgage deferral plans actually make them more profits, while saddling Canadians with increasing levels of debt. Canada’s five big banks are consistently in the top most profitable companies in Canada, making over $29 billion dollars annual profit for the last few years. In this time of valuing essential workers, what value do banks provide? They have shown, yet again, they prefer profits to helping people. It is time they were taken into public ownership to provide low-cost help to millions of struggling Canadians.
The mounting nightmare in the US may make the Canadian government seem competent, but a poor response is not excused by a terrible one. The government may hide behind the excuse that many actions are up to the provinces, but the federal government should provide timely and decisive leadership during this major crisis.
Defenders of the government might say to give it time. But COVID-19 is not giving anyone time. When a government wants to act. it can. In World War Two the Cadillac plant in Detroit was converted to make tanks in just 55 days. Fifty-five days from the January 30 WHO warning was March 25. At that stage the government had done very little to guarantee plentiful supplies of equipment and widespread testing, given people security of income and housing for all, or stopped profiteering from COVID-19. Now on April 12 we are 73 days in and these basic measures have still not happened.
Socialist Alternative says, we need urgent action:
Commandeer companies to build large quantities of needed equipment including test kits, surgical and N95 masks, gowns, gloves and ventilators.
Dramatically increase testing, directing laboratories, in universities and the private sector, not doing essential work, to do the analysis.
Close down all construction that is not related to health, safety and tackling COVID-19.
House the homeless and those in overcrowded or unsafe housing, seizing empty hotels and buildings.
Bring seniors’ home into the public sector with good wages and working conditions.
Bring seniors’ home into the public sector with good wages and working conditions.
Raise the minimum wage to at least $15 with an essential workers’ bonus of at least $2 an hour. Provide protective clothing, time off, and child care for essential workers.
Nationalize the big internet and phone companies (Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw) to provide a universal low-cost public service, free during COVID-19.
Nationalize the big banks (MAKE THE BANKING SYSTEM CREDIT UNIONS)
Capitalism and the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919
Keishia Taylor, Socialist Party (ISA in Ireland) SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE
The 1918-1919 “Spanish Flu” killed between 50-100 million people, more than the number of deaths in the First and Second World Wars combined. According to expert Laura Spinney the Spanish flu “re-sculpted human populations more radically than anything since the Black Death.”
The war plague
The influenza epidemic began in the spring of 1918, quickly spreading throughout Europe due to the movement of WWI troops. Up to half of British soldiers and three-quarters of French soldiers were infected as it ran rampant among the malnourished soldiers, crammed in rotten trenches and army camps.
As the virus mutated, shocking new symptoms developed, including people turning blue from oxygen deprivation and prolific bleeding, the death rate skyrocketed, particularly among young adults in their prime, such as soldiers. This is now thought to have been caused by an overstimulation of the immune system, a cytokine storm, as well as secondary infection such as pneumonia. But doctors of the time were baffled. While the origin of the virus is still disputed, there is certainty that this pandemic would not have occurred without the transporting of troops, diversion of resources and damage to the health of soldiers and civilians as a result of the First World War.
“Keep calm and carry on”
Despite the most devastating pandemic in history unfolding before their eyes, the propaganda machines of the imperialist countries were in overdrive to suppress, deny and downplay the crisis to maintain morale and patriotic appetite for the war and give nothing away to their enemies. Only the press in neutral Spain reported on the outbreak, giving the flu its name.
In fact the suppression of the truth regarding the scale of the current pandemic is something that has been attempted in recent weeks, notably by Trump in the US and the Tories in Britain, although much less successfully due to the access to information and communication in the modern era.
In Philadelphia in 1918, health officials approved a liberty parade attended by 200,000 people, resulting in 759 deaths a week later. As mass graves were dug, schools closed and public gatherings banned, one newspaper announced “This is not a public health measure. There is no cause for alarm.” US President Woodrow Wilson never made a public statement about the disease at all.
Arthur Newsholme, Britain’s senior medical officer decided that “the relentless needs of warfare justified incurring [the] risk of spreading infection” and urged people to calmly “carry on”, a slogan later popularized by WWII propaganda. For capitalist governments on both sides, winning the imperialist war was paramount, regardless of the human cost. Redirecting resources to care for the health of the population was out of the question.
Impact of the pandemic
When troops started dying in huge numbers, from flu rather than warfare, governments began to take notice, but early social distancing measures were primarily the result of necessity. As people fell ill, there were not enough healthy teachers and workers to keep schools and factories open. Working-class people were distrustful of the state’s propaganda and in the absence of information intuitively self-isolated to avoid catching the disease.
The war brought hardship and tragedy to the working class, on the front lines and at home, but the Russian Revolution in October 1917 inspired workers around the world to struggle for a better future. Uprisings occurred around the world during this period, most famously the German Revolution 1918-1919, and in Ireland (where 15,000 died from the flu) we saw the general strike against conscription in 1918, the 1919 Belfast Engineering strike and 1919 Limerick Soviet.
Both the war and the inadequacy of the response to the pandemic exposed the governments and the entire system as working against the interests of the working class. The exploitation of India’s people and land, for example, and the failure of the British colonists to provide a health system led to 17 million deaths, or 5% of the entire Indian population, further fueling the anti-colonial struggle in the country.
Public Health
The global devastation caused by the Spanish flu had a profound impact on the consciousness of working people across the world. It showed that the health of society was a collective issue, not an individual one. It challenged the prevalent ideology that “the great unwashed” (as working-class and poor people were disgustingly and pejoratively referred to by the ruling class), only had themselves to blame for becoming ill, since the sheer scale of the crisis affected the wealthy and officer class as well.
In the following years, the idea of socialized medicine, that was free and accessible to all, began to gain enormous traction. Soviet Russia was the first to develop centralized public healthcare, followed by others in Europe, leading to a comprehensive universal health system, the NHS, later established in Britain after World War Two. In 1924, the Soviet government outlined a vision in which living, working and social conditions were seen as key drivers of health, again way ahead of capitalist countries
Universal healthcare was a huge leap forward for workers and ordinary people, who no longer had to pay self-employed doctors, rely on religious orders or go without. But where these gains were won they have been widely undermined in recent decades by neoliberal cuts and privatization, leaving us unprepared for the current pandemic.
All the medical advances of the last hundred years cannot overcome chronic underfunding and understaffing of the public health system. Capitalist ideology, and the main capitalist parties in every country, are fundamentally opposed to the idea of free healthcare for all, and they will never provide it. Only a genuine socialized healthcare system, publicly owned and democratically planned and controlled by medical workers and patients, will be able to provide the kind of healthcare necessary to withstand this kind of crisis.
How the 1918 Flu Pandemic Revolutionized Public Health
Mass death changed how we think about illness, and government’s role in treating it
By Laura Spinney, Zócalo Public Square
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Nearly 100 years ago, in 1918, the world experienced the greatest tidal wave of death since the Black Death, possibly in the whole of human history. We call that tidal wave the Spanish flu, and many things changed in the wake of it. One of the most profound revolutions took place in the domain of public health.
The world was a very different place in the first decades of the 20th century. Notably, there was no real joined-up thinking when it came to healthcare. Throughout the industrialized world, most doctors either worked for themselves or were funded by charities or religious institutions, and many people had no access to them at all.
Public health policies—like immigration policies—were colored by eugenics. It was common for privileged elites to look down on workers and the poor as inferior categories of human being, whose natural degeneracy predisposed them to disease and deformity. It didn’t occur to those elites to look for the causes of illness in the often abject living conditions of the lower classes: crowded tenements, long working hours, poor diet. If they sickened and died from typhus, cholera and other killer diseases, the eugenicists argued, then it was their own fault, because they lacked the drive to achieve a better quality of life. In the context of an epidemic, public health generally referred to a suite of measures designed to protect those elites from the contaminating influence of the disease-ridden rabble.
The first wave of the Spanish flu struck in the spring of 1918. There was nothing particularly Spanish about it. It attracted that name, unfairly, because the press in neutral Spain tracked its progress in that country, unlike newspapers in warring nations that were censored. But it was flu, and flu as we know is transmitted on the breath—by coughs and sneezes. It is highly contagious and spreads most easily when people are packed together at high densities—in favelas, for example, or trenches. Hence it is sometimes referred to as a “crowd disease.”
Mass death changed how we think about illness, and government’s role in treating it
American Expeditionary Force victims of the flu pandemic
at U.S. Army Camp Hospital no. 45 in Aix-les-Bains, France, in 1918. (Wikipedia)
By Laura Spinney, Zócalo Public Square
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Nearly 100 years ago, in 1918, the world experienced the greatest tidal wave of death since the Black Death, possibly in the whole of human history. We call that tidal wave the Spanish flu, and many things changed in the wake of it. One of the most profound revolutions took place in the domain of public health.
The world was a very different place in the first decades of the 20th century. Notably, there was no real joined-up thinking when it came to healthcare. Throughout the industrialized world, most doctors either worked for themselves or were funded by charities or religious institutions, and many people had no access to them at all.
Public health policies—like immigration policies—were colored by eugenics. It was common for privileged elites to look down on workers and the poor as inferior categories of human being, whose natural degeneracy predisposed them to disease and deformity. It didn’t occur to those elites to look for the causes of illness in the often abject living conditions of the lower classes: crowded tenements, long working hours, poor diet. If they sickened and died from typhus, cholera and other killer diseases, the eugenicists argued, then it was their own fault, because they lacked the drive to achieve a better quality of life. In the context of an epidemic, public health generally referred to a suite of measures designed to protect those elites from the contaminating influence of the disease-ridden rabble.
The first wave of the Spanish flu struck in the spring of 1918. There was nothing particularly Spanish about it. It attracted that name, unfairly, because the press in neutral Spain tracked its progress in that country, unlike newspapers in warring nations that were censored. But it was flu, and flu as we know is transmitted on the breath—by coughs and sneezes. It is highly contagious and spreads most easily when people are packed together at high densities—in favelas, for example, or trenches. Hence it is sometimes referred to as a “crowd disease.”
Policemen in Seattle wearing masks made by the Red Cross during the influenza epidemic, December 1918. (National Archives)
That first wave was relatively mild, not much worse than seasonal flu, but when the second and most deadly phase of the pandemic erupted in the autumn of 1918, people could hardly believe that it was the same disease. An alarmingly high proportion of patients died—twenty-five times as many as in previous flu pandemics. Though initially they reported the classic symptoms of flu—fever, sore throat, headache—soon they were turning blue in the face, having difficulty breathing, even bleeding from their noses and mouths. If blue turned to black, they were unlikely to recover. Their congested lungs were simply too full of fluid to process air, and death usually followed within hours or days. The second wave receded towards the end of the year, but there was a third and final wave—intermediate in virulence between the other two—in early 1919.
Flu is caused by a virus, but virus was a novel concept in 1918, and most of the world’s doctors assumed they were dealing with a bacterial disease. This meant that they were almost completely helpless against the Spanish flu. They had no flu vaccine, no antiviral drugs, not even any antibiotics, which might have been effective against the secondary bacterial infections that killed most of its victims (in the form of pneumonia). Public health measures such as quarantine or the closing of public meeting places could be effective, but even when they were imposed this often happened too late, because influenza was not a reportable disease in 1918. This meant that doctors weren’t obliged to report cases to the authorities, which in turn meant that those authorities failed to see the pandemic coming.
The disease claimed between 50 and 100 million lives, according to current estimates, or between 2.5 and five percent of the global population. To put those numbers in perspective, World War I killed about 18 million people, World War II about 60 million. Rates of sickness and death varied dramatically across the globe, for a host of complex reasons that epidemiologists have been studying ever since. In general, the less well-off suffered worst—though not for the reasons eugenicists proposed—but the elites were by no means spared.
The lesson that health authorities took away from the catastrophe was that it was no longer reasonable to blame an individual for catching an infectious disease, nor to treat him or her in isolation. The 1920s saw many governments embracing the concept of socialized medicine—healthcare for all, delivered free at the point of delivery. Russia was the first country to put in place a centralized public healthcare system, which it funded via a state-run insurance scheme, and others in Western Europe followed suit. The United States took a different route, preferring employer-based insurance schemes, but it also took measures to consolidate healthcare in the post-flu years.
In 1924, the Soviet government laid out its vision of the physician of the future, who would have “the ability to study the occupational and social conditions which give rise to illness and not only to cure the illness but to suggest ways to prevent it.” This vision was gradually adopted across the world: the new medicine would be not only biological and experimental, but also sociological. Public health started to look more like it does today.
The cornerstone of public health is epidemiology—the study of patterns, causes and effects in disease—and this now received full recognition as a science. Epidemiology requires data, and the gathering of health data became more systematic. By 1925, for example, all U.S. states were participating in a national disease reporting system, and the early warning apparatus that had been so lamentably lacking in 1918 began to take shape. Ten years later, reflecting the authorities’ new interest in the population’s “baseline” health, U.S. citizens were subjected to the first national health survey.
Many countries created or revamped health ministries in the 1920s. This was a direct result of the pandemic, during which public health leaders had been either left out of cabinet meetings entirely, or reduced to pleading for funds and powers from other departments. But there was also recognition of the need to coordinate public health at the international level, since clearly, contagious diseases didn’t respect borders. The year 1919 saw the opening, in Vienna, Austria, of an international bureau for fighting epidemics—a forerunner of today’s World Health Organization.
By the time the WHO came into existence, in 1946, eugenics had been disgraced and the new organization’s constitution enshrined a thoroughly egalitarian approach to health. It stated that, “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” That philosophy wouldn’t eliminate the threat of flu pandemics—the WHO has known three in its lifetime, and will surely know more—but it would transform the way human beings confronted them. And it was born of an understanding that pandemics are a social, not an individual problem.
Laura Spinney is a science journalist and novelist based in Paris.
That first wave was relatively mild, not much worse than seasonal flu, but when the second and most deadly phase of the pandemic erupted in the autumn of 1918, people could hardly believe that it was the same disease. An alarmingly high proportion of patients died—twenty-five times as many as in previous flu pandemics. Though initially they reported the classic symptoms of flu—fever, sore throat, headache—soon they were turning blue in the face, having difficulty breathing, even bleeding from their noses and mouths. If blue turned to black, they were unlikely to recover. Their congested lungs were simply too full of fluid to process air, and death usually followed within hours or days. The second wave receded towards the end of the year, but there was a third and final wave—intermediate in virulence between the other two—in early 1919.
Flu is caused by a virus, but virus was a novel concept in 1918, and most of the world’s doctors assumed they were dealing with a bacterial disease. This meant that they were almost completely helpless against the Spanish flu. They had no flu vaccine, no antiviral drugs, not even any antibiotics, which might have been effective against the secondary bacterial infections that killed most of its victims (in the form of pneumonia). Public health measures such as quarantine or the closing of public meeting places could be effective, but even when they were imposed this often happened too late, because influenza was not a reportable disease in 1918. This meant that doctors weren’t obliged to report cases to the authorities, which in turn meant that those authorities failed to see the pandemic coming.
The disease claimed between 50 and 100 million lives, according to current estimates, or between 2.5 and five percent of the global population. To put those numbers in perspective, World War I killed about 18 million people, World War II about 60 million. Rates of sickness and death varied dramatically across the globe, for a host of complex reasons that epidemiologists have been studying ever since. In general, the less well-off suffered worst—though not for the reasons eugenicists proposed—but the elites were by no means spared.
The lesson that health authorities took away from the catastrophe was that it was no longer reasonable to blame an individual for catching an infectious disease, nor to treat him or her in isolation. The 1920s saw many governments embracing the concept of socialized medicine—healthcare for all, delivered free at the point of delivery. Russia was the first country to put in place a centralized public healthcare system, which it funded via a state-run insurance scheme, and others in Western Europe followed suit. The United States took a different route, preferring employer-based insurance schemes, but it also took measures to consolidate healthcare in the post-flu years.
In 1924, the Soviet government laid out its vision of the physician of the future, who would have “the ability to study the occupational and social conditions which give rise to illness and not only to cure the illness but to suggest ways to prevent it.” This vision was gradually adopted across the world: the new medicine would be not only biological and experimental, but also sociological. Public health started to look more like it does today.
The cornerstone of public health is epidemiology—the study of patterns, causes and effects in disease—and this now received full recognition as a science. Epidemiology requires data, and the gathering of health data became more systematic. By 1925, for example, all U.S. states were participating in a national disease reporting system, and the early warning apparatus that had been so lamentably lacking in 1918 began to take shape. Ten years later, reflecting the authorities’ new interest in the population’s “baseline” health, U.S. citizens were subjected to the first national health survey.
Many countries created or revamped health ministries in the 1920s. This was a direct result of the pandemic, during which public health leaders had been either left out of cabinet meetings entirely, or reduced to pleading for funds and powers from other departments. But there was also recognition of the need to coordinate public health at the international level, since clearly, contagious diseases didn’t respect borders. The year 1919 saw the opening, in Vienna, Austria, of an international bureau for fighting epidemics—a forerunner of today’s World Health Organization.
By the time the WHO came into existence, in 1946, eugenics had been disgraced and the new organization’s constitution enshrined a thoroughly egalitarian approach to health. It stated that, “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” That philosophy wouldn’t eliminate the threat of flu pandemics—the WHO has known three in its lifetime, and will surely know more—but it would transform the way human beings confronted them. And it was born of an understanding that pandemics are a social, not an individual problem.
Laura Spinney is a science journalist and novelist based in Paris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)