#Sponsored

Friday, May 8, 2020

Will the American Way of Life Become a Casualty of the Coronavirus? Perhaps, in the end, after the world was ravaged by another of the many atrocities that mankind’s history has been built upon century after century, the greatest danger to Baltimore and other cities wouldn’t be a virus that people couldn’t see; perhaps, instead, it would be their apathy. by Maggie Ybarra

Maggie Ybarra
It began as a purge. Personal security was gutted. Prosperity was siphoned away. People went into hiding, beset by the idea that they could die in a coronavirus contagion haze after interacting with the wrong person. But that wasn’t the most difficult part about enduring the pandemic. The true tribulations began two months after the purge; they began after people had become more desperate, more afraid of the future, and more confident about returning to their old ways. In January, they had gathered at their favorite bars after a long day at the office and complained about politics or ate one too many tacos. It was a blind bliss bought by ignorance. In March, they were informed by President Donald Trump that they would be grappling with a worldwide pandemic. By April, the country had changed. A virus that had gained footing overseas had spread like wildfire in major cities, forcing bars and restaurants to shutter their doors. The long days at the office were gone. Economic stability had disappeared. At night, the news organizations displayed images of corpses wrapped in white bags being loaded into refrigerated trucks in the once-busy streets of New York City. They showed video footage of people in biohazard suits placing bodies into a mass grave on Hart Island. The gears in the clock were moving at a fast pace in high-density parts of the country: alive this month and dead the next. By May, those who resided outside of the coronavirus hot zones though, who didn’t have to see the deadly virus’s grim threats on a daily basis, yearned for their old ways of living. 
In Baltimore, life was operating on a set of gears that were gummed up with denial and grease. They bore several shades of serialism spanning from the prosperous parts that typically attracted people with plump paychecks to the impoverished portions populated by those with change-agent dreams and those who had survived enough broken dreams to stop believing in change. In the run-down, partially burned-down neighborhoods surrounding the city’s center, most of the stores stayed open because essential businesses barely existed before the coronavirus became an existential threat. In the upscale parts of the city, many of the stores had closed but the restaurants and food markets remained operational. People adapted to the change at their own pace. The majority of them tried to abide by the new rules and restrictions enforced by city leaders and state officials. They wore masks in public spaces. They tried to maintain some semblance of distance, some respect for the threat that the coronavirus posed. The minority clung to pre-pandemic normalcy.  

This trend was evident on the public buses that shuttled those on restricted incomes to and from various parts of the city, where the pushback was small but obvious. Some people would slide their masks down to shout into their phones. The bus driver might say something about it but more often than not, they were too busy driving a bus. If they chose, instead, to ride a bicycle, then they wore their masks around their necks like a necklace because it denied them oxygen. 
In the popular parts of the impoverished neighborhoods, people still gathered in areas where it was popular to buy and sell drugs. They squished into small corner stores where the “no more than ten people” rule had no impact. They went about the task of trying to muddle through life after a deadly disease had stolen their income and security. Maybe it wasn’t “essential” for the stout man in the N95 mask to set up a barbecue grill by the auto repair shop and sell $1.50 cheeseburgers to passing strangers, but it was probably the only way he was going to make any money during the era of the coronavirus. In the wealthier parts of town—around the upscale downtown buildings and the harbor area—the pushback was more obvious. Joggers who clearly couldn’t breathe through a mask ran up and down the sidewalks without one, forcing those individuals who were more conscientious of the fact that they could be contagious to step to the side. Couples walked their dogs together. And at the end of a day of self-prioritization, they sometimes strolled into one of many area restaurants to buy to-go meals and sample the happy hour specials—something that couldn’t be done in the poor parts of town. It was a tale of two cities, two Baltimores, two realities. 
Perhaps, in the end, after the world was ravaged by another of the many atrocities that mankind’s history has been built upon century after century, the greatest danger to the city wouldn’t be a virus that people couldn’t see; perhaps, instead, it would be their apathy. 
And as the days went by and people’s resolve to reside in self-quarantine bubbles slowly started to fray, violent crimes began to gain momentum. In May, the eerily calm days and nights shifted towards the familiar sour tones of pre-summer violence. Detectives investigated shooting after shooting searching for clues and solutions amid the hubbub of personal health concerns and pandemic panic. 
Crime lab technicians, who had gathered evidence in rain and snow, who had watched evidence markers skid across the concrete with a push from the wild wind and worked in freezing weather conditions, were expected to perform under the same conditions with cumbersome masks attached to their faces. They were the worker bees of the colony, buzzing around from crime scene to crime scene at all hours of the day. A shooting here; a commercial burglary there. Recovering shell casings on the east side of the city and then dusting for fingerprints in the west. Without them, the hive would become weak—their small role bore that much significance on its success and security. Over the weekend, they scattered across the city. On Friday night, they collected evidence as an inebriated man bumbled through their outdoor workspace, and then, on Sunday night, they were back in that same neighborhood again, enduring the wrath of a rainstorm. 
The next day showed little reprieve. There were more shootings on Monday. Detectives and crime lab technicians found themselves exploring familiar spaces again, returning to neighborhoods that had recently been rattled by violence. Police were tracking burglaries, checking on the few businesses still operating, and recovering ATMs from the favorite dumping grounds of the city’s criminals. It seemed as if the gears of Baltimore’s clock were turning at a quicker pace. 
It was still unclear at the beginning of May if life was going to be the same as it was before the coronavirus swept across the planet. No one knew if there would be major risks associated with trying to travel back in time to old comfort zones. It was, after all, difficult for people to see the dangers associated with a pandemic when the negative impacts of it weren’t happening in front of them. It was difficult for them to believe that their lives could be in jeopardy when their dysfunctional society was still somewhat functioning. This frustration and arrogance were on flagrant display at the city’s sole Target store. People were content to wait close together in long lines to buy food, shampoo, and nail polish, their faces partially shielded by a variety of colorful cloth that they could conveniently use to mask their emotions. They were living out every bank robber’s wildest fantasy wrapped up into an apocalyptic dystopia. 

Over many centuries, the world has endured epic tragedies that yielded instability, cultural changes, and death. The environment created by the coronavirus wasn’t any different. Various societies suffered and their ways of life went extinct but it didn’t kill mankind so much as it added to his complicated layers of history. Pompeii was a pleasure destination, a place where physical addictions were monetized. But then, one day Mount Vesuvius, the neighborhood volcano, erupted and killed the people in and around the city. It was the end of an era and the creation of an archaeological treasure. An extreme tragedy, therefore, does not necessarily connote the beginning of the end; most of the time, it just marks the end of the beginning. It’s much like Jeff Goldblum noted when he described the dangers of ignoring the history of evolution while playing the role of Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: “Life will not be contained . . . Life finds a way.”

The Coronavirus Has Led to More Authoritarianism for Turkey It is difficult to see how Ankara will be able to recover from the heavy toll that the coronavirus is inflicting on the country and the accompanying deep economic and governance problems. by Kemal Kirisci

Reuters
Turkey is well into its second month since the first coronavirus case was diagnosed on March 10. As of May 5, the number of reported cases has reached almost 130,000, which puts Turkey among the top eight countries grappling with the deadly disease—ahead of even China and Iran. Fortunately, so far, the Turkish death toll, at less than 2.7 percent of reported cases, has been relatively low compared to the world average of almost 7 percent. A senior expert from the World Health Organization (WHO) recently credited Turkey’s performance and expressed cautious optimism about the situation stabilizing. With reported cases and deaths falling, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced on May 4 a graduated program for lifting restrictions in May and June.   
Thus far, Turkey’s response has been marked by a tension between an approach based on science, represented by the minister of health, Fahrettin Koca, and a piecemeal counterpart shaped by Erdoğan’s political priorities: perpetuating his one-man rule by saving the economy and keeping his conservative religious base happy. As the country begins to open up, Erdoğan’s policies and narrative suggest that the country should expect more of the same authoritarian politics. It is doubtful that this will help to solve Turkey’s persistent economic and political problems that have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Tackling the Coronavirus Turkish-Style 
As the virus raged on in China, many in Turkey wrongly believed that the country would not be affected by the spread of the virus. As late as mid-March the Turkish president even predicted economic gains for Turkey emerging from the crisis. Precious time was lost until the WHO officially declared a pandemic, coincidentally on the same day that Turkey’s first case was reported, and the country’s vulnerability was finally recognized. Two weeks later, the severity of the situation had still not completely dawned on the president as he speculated, in an address to the nation, that the country could emerge from the crisis within two to three weeks. 
In contrast, Koca adopted a more realistic and science-based approach. He set up an advisory board composed of medical experts and scientists. He also chose to be relatively transparent by instituting daily press conferences and sharing data on the course of the infections. In sharp contrast to Erdoğan’s own approach, his softer and much less divisive communication style earned praise. This helped him to win the trust needed to convince the public to comply with the steadily expanding set of government measures ranging from social distancing and the closing down of public spaces to travel bans and, eventually, curfews. In a recent poll public, trust in Koca was reported to stand at an exceptionally high level of 75 percent. However, politically he remains unequivocally subordinate to Erdoğan and his policy priorities.  
President Erdoğan’s Priorities 
Two such priorities for the president have deeply marked the adoption and implementation of the measures to keep the virus at bay and then defeat it in Turkey. The urgent need to keep his conservative religious base happy led to hesitancy with regards to quarantining pilgrims returning from Mecca after Saudi Arabia-imposed travel bans and blocked access to holy sites due to the detection of coronavirus cases. A less than strict enforcement of the eventual quarantine led to infected individuals spreading the virus to their hometowns, particularly along the Black Sea, which then led to the imposition of Turkey’s first curfews on some of the towns. There was also equivocation regarding the closing down of mosques to communal gatherings including the Friday prayers. Hardly a week after the introduction of a ban by the Directorate of Religious Affairs there was a sole Friday prayer for a select few held at the Presidential Palace, allegedly to boost morale. Yet, the back and forth preceding this VIP-only prayer betrayed a considerable degree of confusion in the ranks of the government, which was driven by indecision over whether to follow the teachings of science or religion.
Keeping the economy running is a major concern for Erdoğan, as it has been for leaders around the world. In summer 2018, the Turkish economy entered a recession marked by negative growth rates, growing unemployment, and soaring inflation, especially in basic agricultural products just before critical local elections in March 2019. A fragile recovery could be seen by the final quarter of 2019, primarily driven by private consumption supported by monetary easing and fiscal measures. In January 2020, the minister of finance, Berat Albayrak, confidently predicted that the Turkish economy would expand 5 percent by the end of the year.  
The coronavirus has dashed these hopes. Persistent problems such as a constantly weakening currency, high debt, dwindling foreign reserves, and growing unemployment threaten to destroy the Turkish economy. The International Monetary Fund warned that the economy could shrink by 5 percent and that unemployment could reach over 17 percent by the end of the year. Travel bans and the contraction in international trade is hitting Turkey’s tourism and export earnings hard, two important drivers of employment and economic growth. This picture has left Erdoğan facing a dilemma between saving lives and saving the economy.  
The tension between the two became yet another source of inconsistent and piecemeal measures. His initial response to the pandemic on March 18 was marked by a striking contradiction as he called for people to stay at home and avoid travel while announcing a significant tax cut on air travel and hotel industry to spur business at the same time. The response also included an economic stimulus program of $15 billion corresponding to roughly 2 percent of Turkey’s GDP, admittedly a meager sum compared to the stimulus packages adopted by the United States and the EU. This revealed how the government was caught with very little resources of its own hence the pressure to keep the economy open.
Yet, the steady increase in the coronavirus cases intensified the calls for lockdowns. Initially, those above the age of sixty-five and subsequently those twenty years and below were ordered to stay at home. However, on both occasions the government had to revisit these hastily introduced decisions and allow those with jobs to be excluded from the restriction. This conspicuous tension between the need to prevent the spread of the virus by introducing stricter isolation measures while keeping the economy open reached a peak on April 12 with the resignation of the interior minister, Süleyman Soylu. Less than forty-eight hours earlier, Soylu had unexpectedly issued a weekend curfew under instructions from Erdoğan, precipitating a rush to supermarkets and bakeries. The resulting criticism over the failure to coordinate even with the Health Ministry and for effectively undermining significant gains in social distancing led to calls for his resignation.  

To project an image of unity, Erdoğan rejected Soylu’s resignation, to the delight of his supporters who celebrated the decision in the streets of Istanbul in defiance of social distancing measures. Then, the government, in a unique practice around the world, announced curfews for thirty-one provinces solely for weekends and holidays. This decision, whose effectiveness has been questioned by the Turkish Medical Association, further underscored the tension between saving Turkish lives and saving the Turkish economy. 
It Is All About Political Survival 
The presidential system of government that Erdoğan instituted in 2014 and formalized in 2018 has centralized all power, eroding traditional checks and balances associated with democratic governance. As the coronavirus further aggravates Turkey’s governance and economic problems, three distinct developments are betraying Erdoğan’s efforts to continue to consolidate his one-man rule.  
An important outcome of Erdoğan’s growing authoritarianism and centralization of power has been to weaken Turkey’s institutions. While Turkey’s government agencies had already been significantly weakened, the coronavirus crisis revealed how professional organizations have also suffered. For example, the Turkish Medical Union, long recognized for its professionalism and constructive criticism of government policies, was excluded from the advisory board set up by the Health Minister, denying it the possibility to shape policymaking. In 2011, the government closed Turkey’s only vaccine development and production institute despite considerable resistance and warnings. The institute was set up in 1928 and had developed a world-renowned reputation for its work. Similarly, the closure of military hospitals and their pharmaceutical factories met criticism from experts. Their closures robbed Turkey of the infrastructure, scientific knowledge and experience needed to contribute to the fight against the coronavirus and the development of a vaccine. 
Secondly, the repression of criticism and opposition has persisted, if not intensified, over the recent weeks. The practice of detaining critics and opposition figures had long become a distinguishing aspect of Turkey’s presidential rule. A Turkish businessman and philanthropist, Osman Kavala, and a former opposition leader, Selahattin Demirtaş, have been in detention for years despite court rulings that say they should be released.  Since the pandemic, numerous journalists and social media users have been detained on the grounds of disseminating “provocative news,” and a doctor questioning the government’s statistics was forced to apologize for misleading the public. Ordinary individuals have not been spared. A truck driver was detained when he implicitly addressed himself to Erdoğan in a viral video recording arguing “Either I stay at home at your word and die from hunger or I die from the virus. In the end, it’s not the virus but your system that will kill me.” Repression and the silencing of criticism has inevitably led to questions concerning the accuracy of the coronavirus statistics and commentary that the picture in Turkey is much worse than presented by Koca in his daily briefs. 
Lastly, since Justice and Development Party candidates in Istanbul and other leading metropolitan cities lost last year’s mayoral elections to opposition parties, Erdoğan has systematically undermined and blocked their efforts to fight the coronavirus. The efforts of the Ankara and Istanbul mayors to raise donations from the public were declared illegal, a declaration that violated the law governing the powers of municipalities in Turkey. Additionally, the government opened a criminal probe against the mayors. Simultaneously, Erdoğan used the need to thin out Turkey’s overcrowded prisons to prevent the spread of the virus to consolidate his alliance with his ultra-nationalist coalition partner Devlet Bahçeli and his Nationalist Action Party, which has become a vital ally needed to garner the 50 percent + 1 necessary to win presidential elections. The parliament adopted a partial amnesty law, long desired by the Nationalist Action Party, early in April. The law allows for the release of ninety thousand ordinary criminal convicts while continuing to keep close to fifty thousand imprisoned, including Kavala and Demirtaş, on loosely worded terrorism charges.   
Conclusion

The Economist recently published an article which argues that autocrats are using the coronavirus to grab power. But for Erdoğan, preventing the coronavirus from eroding his one-man rule and preempting future challenges to it is more important. Thus, it is these goals that cause Erdoğan’s approach to appear piecemeal and incremental compared to those adopted by other countries such as Germany, South Korea and Taiwan. Nevertheless, his handling of the crisis so far, at least according to one survey, has received almost 56 percent approval from the public, an increase of more than fifteen points from February. If his new plans for opening the country proceed smoothly and a resurgence of the virus is prevented, then this support is likely to increase, potentially providing Erdoğan the support he needs to further cement his rule.  
Moving forward, it is difficult to see how Turkey will be able to recover from the heavy toll that the coronavirus is inflicting on the country and the accompanying deep economic and governance problems. Yet if Erdoğan continues to offer more of his authoritarian, one-man rule, recovery will be doubly difficult and likely result in an inward-looking Turkey, bogged down in its own problems and unable to play a constructive role in reconstituting a post–COVID world order that cherishes democracy, the rule of law and sustainable economic development. 

Can You Catch Coronavirus from a UPS, Amazon or Fedex Package? Good news: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the chance of getting coronavirus from delivered packages is considered very low. It’s even lower when the packages have traveled over a period of days or weeks by Ethen Kim Lieser


With millions of Americans still following shelter-in-place directives, the need for quick and efficient home deliveries has never been greater.
Amid an increasing number of studies showing that the coronavirus can survive for periods on cardboard and plastic, people are naturally wondering if they can contract COVID-19 from delivery packages.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the chance of getting coronavirus from delivered packages is considered very low. It’s even lower when the packages have traveled over a period of days or weeks.
The World Health Organization agreed with that assessment, saying that it is very unlikely for a package to be contaminated after being exposed to different weather conditions.
A recent study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovered that COVID-19 was detectable for up to 24 hours on cardboard and 72 hours on plastic and stainless steel.
Researchers, though, noted that there have been no COVID-19 cases linked to direct contact with delivery packages.
Despite having no known cases, infectious disease experts are open to the idea of individuals taking extra precautionary steps, such as leaving packages outside or in the garage for a day or two after receiving them.  
The most consistent advice is to wash your hands for at least 20 seconds after handling packages and their contents.
Delivery companies have also taken proactive measures to lessen the chance of COVID-19 spread.
For example, both UPS and FedEx have stopped requiring in-person signatures for most package deliveries. In addition, large grocery stores like Walmart and Target are now offering online ordering and curbside pickups.
Recently, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that the company is taking increased safety measures to protect its 100 million customers and its employees.

“We’ve implemented a series of preventative health measures for employees and contractors at our sites around the world—everything from increasing the frequency and intensity of cleaning to adjusting our practices in fulfillment centers to ensure the recommended social distancing guidelines,” Bezos wrote in an open letter on Amazon’s blog.
The U.S. Postal Service, UPS and FedEx have been disinfecting its facilities and vehicles on a daily basis to limit the COVID-19 spread.

Coronavirus: Why Sovereignty Led to the Failure of Global Governance A radical transformation is necessary. by Tom Pegram

Reuters
World leaders have pledged €7.4 billion (£6.4 billion) in a digital fundraiser as part of a new “international alliance” to fight COVID-19. Assembled political leaders declared their support for the World Health Organization (WHO), which will receive some of the funds alongside other organisations working on vaccine and treatment development. 
Conspicuously absent so far from this new alliance, which was driven by the European Commission, was the US. This follows President Donald Trump’s decision in April to halt funding for the WHO, claiming that the organisation covered up the spread of the coronavirus in collusion with the Chinese government.

Trump’s decision is a major blow, given that the US is the WHO’s largest single funder. At a time when the WHO is desperately trying to raise a US$2 billion (£1.6 billion) global humanitarian response fund to assist the world’s poorest countries, it spells disaster.
COVID-19 reminds us of the dangers posed by global systemic risks to the protection and safeguarding of human life – the first duty of any state – in our ever more global civilisation. It also exposes a basic contradiction between an enormously complex planetary ecosystem and our still dominant form of political organisation: a fragmented system of sovereign states.
The American architect and theorist Buckminster Fuller captured this mismatch almost 40 years ago:
We have today, in fact, 150 supreme admirals and only one ship – Spaceship Earth. We have the 150 admirals in their 150 staterooms each trying to run their respective stateroom as if it were a separate ship. We have the starboard side admirals’ league trying to sink the port side admirals’ league. If either is successful in careening the ship to drown the ‘enemy’ side, the whole ship will be lost.
Emerging evidence of successful protection of life in places as diverse as New ZealandSouth KoreaHong KongVietnam, and the Indian state of Kerala, speaks to the enduring importance of “command and control” state capacity in delivering fundamental public goods, especially in times of crisis. Meanwhile, experts are rightly scrutinising the alarming lack of preparedness in some of the world’s wealthiest countries.
But despite the importance of national capacity, there remains a key role for global strategy in health governance. And that’s why the failings of the WHO are such cause for concern.
Funding shortfall
2007 study by scientists in Hong Kong predicted the reemergence of a SARS-like coronavirus from bat meat, the likely source of COVID-19. If an epidemic was predictable then a pandemic was preventable and the WHO should have played a central role in the detection and avoidance of a COVID-19 pandemic in the critical window of January 2020.
It’s estimated US$3.4 billion a year is needed to fund “global functions” of WHO pandemic preparedness. However, WHO global pandemic preparedness funds have fallen woefully short of this target, even following the 2014 Ebola epidemic.

Wealthy governments have long been resistant to redistributive demands by developing countries and have left the WHO chronically funded as a result. There has also been a desire by Western governments to prioritise health sector loans, with strings attached, through the World Bank. Countries have never given the WHO the requisite independence, powers or resources required to fulfil its mission to ensure “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health”.
Few effective tools
To seasoned WHO observers, its deferential posture towards China (and governments of all shades) reflects its reliance on states cooperating with it. The WHO has no powers to compel information-sharing or enforce pandemic preparedness. Former director-generals, such as Gro Harlem Brundtland or Halfdan Mahler, willing to confront powerful interests, have faced stiff resistance.
As with the UN’s human rights and climate change agencies, the WHO finds itself embattled – at the mercy of obstructive member states and saddled with dwindling resources. It enjoys few effective tools to directly monitor outbreaks of infectious disease, coordinate pandemic planning, allocate resources to those countries most in need, or ensure effective preparedness implementation at country-level.
The WHO should serve a vital global function, mitigating against the risk of states becoming overwhelmed. In turn, it could reduce the destructive impact unmanaged economic globalisation has had on public health systems, many of which have been left ill-prepared to deal with COVID-19.
A fix is needed
The WHO is essential, but it is broken. We will almost certainly confront even more daunting challenges on our interconnected, globalised planet. COVID-19 is a global catastrophe, but recovery is not in question. The same cannot be said for other global risks facing the world, including the possibility of much deadlier pandemics.
A sober reckoning with this predicament demands a radical transformation in how we design and manage authoritative health governance both domestically and at a global scale. Political economist Elinor Ostrom’s work on cultivating global solidarity through “polycentric governance” – fostering collective action between those who make decisions in contexts of competition, conflict resolution, cooperation, and social learning – provides important coordinates for such an endeavour.
Whether or not existing global governance configurations such as the UN and the WHO can be repurposed to address systemic global risks is an open question. This is not simply a call for more funding to the WHO or other intergovernmental bodies. Its dysfunctions are symptomatic of a broken global political system.
For many, global-scale system reform may appear untenable, for others, undesirable. But what if – as expert observers increasingly agree – nothing less is going to be enough? Why, if we can imagine existential climate catastrophe, can we not imagine a different role for the nation state? Rather than countries competing with one another, we should remember we are agents of the global whole working on behalf of all inhabitants on Spaceship Earth.

Coronavirus: A Doctor Answers 6 Questions About Confusing Findings of the Virus Here are the answers. by William Petri

Reuters
 As researchers try to find treatments and create a vaccine for COVID-19, doctors and others on the front lines continue to find perplexing symptoms. And the disease itself has unpredictable effects on various people. Dr. William Petri, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia Medical School, answers questions about these confusing findings.
Some evidence suggests that patients experience low oxygen saturation days before they appear in the ER. If so, is there a way to treat patients earlier?

Even before symptoms arise, people infected with SARS-CoV-2 show damage to their lungs. This is likely why low oxygen saturation – that is, below-normal oxygen levels in their blood – occurs before the patient goes to the ER. Restoring those levels to normal is presumed, though not proven, to be beneficial; giving patients supplemental oxygen via a nasal cannula, a flexible tube that delivers oxygen, placed just inside the nostrils, will restore oxygen to normal levels unless disease worsens to the extent that mechanical ventilation is needed.
Young adults are having strokes with COVID-19. Does this suggest the illness is more of a vascular disease than a lung disease in that age group?
COVID-19 can be a devastating disease to multiple organs and systems in the body, including the vascular and immune systems. A lung infection is the primary cause of disease and death. There are examples of the clotting system being activated and causing strokes, perhaps caused by an immune system responding abnormally to COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated its official list of symptoms. Does this suggest anything unusual about COVID-19?
This new information is due to a greater number of infected individuals being studied. The update simply reflects a better understanding of the full spectrum of illness due to COVID-19, from asymptomatic to presymptomatic to severe and fatal infections.
How can so many people experience such mild symptoms and others quickly die from it?
One of the most fascinating aspects of these diseases is the huge difference that individuals experience with an infection. In our own research, we have found that many children in the U.S. infected with cryptosporidia have no symptoms, yet this parasite is a major killer of infants in the developing world. After an infection of SARS-CoV-2, the severity of the illness is likely due in part to how the patient’s immune system responds; an overzealous immune response may cause death through what is called colloquially a “cytokine storm..” We do not know yet if cytokine storms occur more in one group than another – for example, older versus younger.
The disease appears now to affect various other organs – heart and kidney, for example. What does this suggest?
What we know most clearly is that infection starts only in human cells with the ACE2 receptor – that is, in a cell that is capable of receiving the virus. That is present not only in the lungs, but in other cells as well, including those in the intestine and in the nasal mucosa, which lines the nasal cavity. When those cells are infected, the immune system is activated. A consequence is that both the heart and kidney are affected.

Why are some countries not experiencing as much COVID-19 as the U.S., Europe and China?
I think it’s too early in the pandemic to know if certain countries or populations are relatively less susceptible. The younger overall age of a population could be a primary factor. Or perhaps the virus, so far at least, has not had time to spread more widely in these countries.

With F-35s And KC-46A Tankers, Israel Can Hurt Iran Like Never Before A devastating combination. by Michael Peck


If Israel does decide to bomb Iran, the U.S. government has made it a little easier.
The U.S. State Department has approved an Israeli request to buy eight KC-46A Pegasus aerial tankers. Including support equipment, spare parts and training, the deal is valued at $2.4 billion, with the first aircraft arriving in 2023.
The sale “supports the foreign policy and national security of the United States by allowing Israel to provide a redundant capability to U.S. assets within the region, potentially freeing U.S. assets for use elsewhere during times of war,” said the State Department’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. “Aerial refueling and strategic airlift are consistently cited as significant shortfalls for our allies.  In addition, the sale improves Israel's national security posture as a key U.S. ally.”
If approved by the U.S. Congress -- which is unlikely to block it --  the sale is notable on several levels. It’s the first time the U.S. has sold tanker aircraft to Israel. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) currently has 11 tankers, including seven American-made Boeing 707 airliners and four Lockheed Martin C-130H transports. But the Israelis themselves converted these planes into tankers.
The problem is that most IAF tankers are 60 years old: the 707, long retired from commercial air travel, dates back to 1958. The IAF is so desperate to maintain its aerial refueling capability – which allows its aircraft to fly deep across the Middle East – that in 2017, it bought an old Brazilian Air Force 707 just to cannibalize for spare parts.
The KC-46A Pegasus is a different beast. Based on Boeing’s 767 airliner, the twin-engine KC-46A can carry 106 tons of fuel to feed hungry jet fighters, and has a range of more than 6,000 miles. The Pegasus is replacing the 1950s KC-135 Stratotanker as the Air Force’s aerial refueler, with 31 currently in service.
A series of manufacturing defects led the U.S. Air Force in 2019 to briefly ban cargo and passengers from flying on the KC-46A, and there are still glitches in the remote-controlled refueling boom. Because the U.S. also flies the Pegasus, it’s reasonable to assume that the Pentagon will insist on ironing out the bugs, which will also benefit the Israeli models.
Also significant is that the State Department approval of the sale is deemed to “provide a redundant capability to U.S. assets within the region, potentially freeing U.S. assets for use elsewhere during times of war.” In other words, the U.S. is selling tankers to Israel with the expectation that they will be used to support American as well as Israeli forces during wartime.
However, the U.S. government also asserts that the sale “will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”
Iran may beg to disagree.
Israel is buying 50 U.S. F-35 stealth fighters, and has already stood up two squadrons. The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A model has a range of more than 1,350 nautical miles using internal fuel. While the Israeli-modified F-35I has special Israeli-designed external fuel tanks, a direct flight path between Jerusalem and Tehran is just under a thousand miles each way.  
Israel has long threatened to attack Iranian nuclear sites if Tehran tries to build atomic weapons. Iran has more than a thousand anti-aircraft guns, several varieties of surface-to-air missiles, and has repeatedly asked Russia to sell it advanced S-400 anti-aircraft missiles. Iranian nuclear facilities will certainly be protected by strong air defenses.
Which means that if Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites, the IAF F-35’s – as well as additional F-15 fighters that it intends to purchase – would need mid-air refueling, and probably multiple refills. The KC-46A carries more fuel than current Israeli tankers, and it has better sensors and jammers to survive hostile air defenses.
New aerial tankers by themselves won’t guarantee the success of an Israeli strike on Iran. But they do make it a little easier.

Watch The Army's Futuristic Invictus Attack Helicopter Destroy Russia's Tanks It’s a new generation of Russian equipment that has the dubious honor of being destroyed by the U.S. defense industry. by Michael Peck

It's natural that a defense manufacturer would depict its next-generation helicopter battling next-generation enemy equipment. But it’s also a reminder of how military technology passes on. Just as the Vietnam-era Huey helicopters have faded, so eventually will the B-52s, F-15s, A-10s and all the other equipment that the Cold War baby boomers grew up with.
The call goes over the radio as three T-14 Armatas – Russia’s most advanced tank – explode under a salvo of missiles.
Their killers -- American attack helicopters – swoop away in search of fresh prey. They quickly find it in the form of what looks T-15s – the armored troop carrier version of the Armata. The T-15s are also wiped out.
None of this was real. The battlefield was fictional, the Armata tanks just entering service now, while the Invictus attack helicopters – assuming the U.S. Army even buys them – wouldn’t be in service for another decade.
Nonetheless, this video game-style presentation by Invictus manufacturer Bell (you can see the video here) is interesting. Not because a defense contractor is putting out promotional materials in hopes of winning a lucrative Pentagon contract. That’s a common enough practice.
What’s different here are the enemy weapons. They’re not the traditional Cold War Soviet equipment, the T-72 tanks and BMP troop carriers (or “generic” enemy weapons that happen to look like them) that you might find in a marketing brochure or an entertainment video game.
It’s a new generation of Russian equipment that has the dubious honor of being destroyed by the U.S. defense industry. For example, another Bell video shows an animated Invictus obliterating an enemy air defense battery. But it’s not a battery of Cold War SA-6 missiles or ZSU-23-4 flak guns: the sacrificial weapons are S-400s, Russia’s advanced long-range anti-aircraft missile.
The first Bell video does show a foot soldier firing a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile at an Invictus, which successfully deflects it by releasing a salvo of decoys. In real life, the Invictus and other helicopters and aircraft would face a formidable and plentiful array of Russian air defense weapons, including the S-400, the Pantsir and Tunguska self-propelled anti-aircraft missile/gun combos, and even Russian attack helicopters armed with air-to-air missiles. NATO planners worry that even stealth aircraft such as F-35 would have difficulty operating over Eastern Europe.
When queried by the National Interest, a Bell spokesman said that decision to include the Armata and the S-400 in the video probably resulted from a desire to depict the battlefield around 2030, when the U.S. Army plans to field a new generation of scout helicopters.
And those helicopters will be formidable. The Invictus (Latin for “unconquered”) is Bell’s contender for the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, which seeks to replace the 1960s Bell OH-58 Kiowa scout helicopter with a modern design. The Army has been searching for a replacement for the Kiowas since the 1980s,  including several abortive projects such as the RAH-66 Comanche, canceled in 2004 after $7 billion had been spent on the project.
There are now five contenders for the FARA contract, which seeks to replace the Kiowa by 2028, including AVX, Bell, Boeing, Karem and Sikorsky. They must meet certain FARA requirements, including being armed with a 20-mm cannon and an integrated munitions launcher, as well as Improved Turbine Engine Program propulsion.
Bell’s Invictus is a sleek design (though not stealthy, which the Army isn’t looking for) based on Bell’s 525 Relentless medium-lift helicopter. The Invictus cruises at 180 knots, has a payload of 1,400 pounds and a combat radius of 135 nautical miles that includes 90 minutes of loiter time on station.
It's natural that a defense manufacturer would depict its next-generation helicopter battling next-generation enemy equipment. But it’s also a reminder of how military technology passes on. Just as the Vietnam-era Huey helicopters have faded, so eventually will the B-52s, F-15s, A-10s and all the other equipment that the Cold War baby boomers grew up with.
Time marches on.

What Will Happen if the Coronavirus Vaccine Fails? A vaccine could provide a way to end the pandemic, but with no prospect of natural herd immunity we could well be facing the threat of COVID-19 for a long time to come. by Sarah Pitt

  There are  over 175  COVID-19 vaccines in development. Almost all government strategies for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic are base...