Explainer: Why Earth’s Magnetic North Pole Is Moving Towards Siberia In recent years, it has been a well-known fact that Earth’s magnetic North Pole has been barreling toward Russia. But scientists were stumped in giving a reasonable explanation as to why this was occurring. It seems as though the riddle finally has been cracked. by Ethen Kim Lieser

In recent years, it has been a well-known fact that Earth’s magnetic North Pole has been barreling toward Russia. But scientists were stumped in giving a reasonable explanation as to why this was occurring. 

It seems as though the riddle finally has been cracked. In a recent study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, a team of researchers has proposed a cause for the shift—two colossal blobs of “negative magnetic flux” sitting beneath Canada and Siberia, located on the edge of our planet’s core.

Earth’s magnetic field is governed by the flow of materials in the planet’s core, and it appears that the two “blobs” are pulling at the magnetic North Pole, whose position was first recorded in 1831.

Over the next several decades, however, its position began to change. Scientists eventually discovered that the magnetic North Pole was moving at a rate of around six miles annually.

Then in the 1990s and 2000s, the pole’s shift suddenly accelerated, eventually reaching a rate of around 25 miles per year.

The research team settled on its conclusions by modeling the movement of molten material inside Earth, using data from European satellites that measure the planet’s magnetic field.

“This change in the pattern of flow has weakened the patch under Canada and ever so slightly increased the strength of the patch under Siberia,” the study’s lead author Dr. Philip Livermore, of the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, told BBC News.

“This is why the North Pole has left its historic position over the Canadian Arctic and crossed over the International Date Line. Northern Russia is winning the tug of war, if you like.”

The team’s latest modeling indicates that the pole will continue to move toward Russia over the next decade, but will eventually slow down. All told, it could travel another 240 to 410 miles.

“Whether or not it will move back again in the future is anyone’s guess,” Livermore said.

The magnetic pole’s drastic movement has forced updates to the World Magnetic Model. The military relies on this model for undersea and aircraft navigation and parachute deployment, while NASA, FAA and other organizations use it for mapping, satellite tracking and air-traffic management.

President Trump Urges Prayers For Recovery After Coronavirus Crisis Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu leaders said prayers at the event, which ended with a gospel choir singing 'God Bless America' and then an a cappella worship song as an encore at Trump’s request. by Fred Lucas

President Donald Trump called for Americans to continue to pray amid the COVID-19 crisis Thursday, as clergy of several faiths prayed for the nation’s recovery in the Rose Garden of the White House.  

“As Scripture assures us, ‘The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save.’ I think it’s so true,” Trump said, quoting Zephaniah 3:17 during the ceremony marking the National Day of Prayer. 

“We are being reminded once again that God has blessed our land with heroes of faith,” the president said.

Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu leaders said prayers at the event, which ended with a gospel choir singing “God Bless America” and then an a cappella worship song as an encore at Trump’s request. 

“On this National Day of Prayer, America is engaged in a fierce battle against a very terrible disease,” the president said, adding:

Throughout our history and times of challenge, our people have always called upon the gift of faith, the blessing of belief, the power of prayer, and the eternal glory of God. I ask all Americans to join their voices and their hearts in spiritual union as we ask our Lord in heaven for strength and solace, for courage and comfort, for hope and healing, for recovery and for renewal. 

In recent days and weeks, our country has endured a grave hardship. We pray for every family stricken by grief and devastated with a tragic loss. We pray for the doctors and nurses and first responders waging war against the invisible enemy. We pray for the scientists and researchers who pioneer treatments, that they find therapies and vaccines and that they find them soon. We pray for the front-line workers keeping our nation fed, nourished, keeping our nation safe and secure. May God watch over them all. 

Before the president spoke, first lady Melania Trump prayed as the invited members of the audience sat 6 feet apart, as suggested by the government’s coronavirus guidelines. 

“On this National Day of Prayer, let us take a moment to extend our deepest sympathy to those who have lost their loved ones to COVID-19,” the first lady prayed, adding:

Let us pray for the ill, the ones who are suffering, and those who are serving on the front lines. When evil darkens our world, give us light. When despair numbs our souls, give us hope. When we stumble and fall, lift us up. When doubts assail us, give us faith.

When nothing seems sure, give us trust. When ideas fade, give us vision. When we lose our way, be our guide that we may find serenity in your presence and purpose in doing your will. Amen.

Why Russia's Anti-Coronavirus Economic Measures Will Backfire Can Moscow find a way to recover? by Stratfor Worldview

As the COVID-19 pandemic bites harder on Russia’s economy, Moscow's reluctance to divert its vast financial reserves toward more stimulus spending will restrain its ability to fend off a cumulative economic crunch that triggers longer term setbacks. In a televised address on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced additional or advanced support measures to help the country’s private sector weather the COVID-19 crisis. The support measures’ narrow scope, however, has failed to impress both the business community and economists.  

Indeed, most of the “new” measures Putin unveiled only represent the further implementation of prior announcements or the expansion of existing measures. But with more than a third of domestic companies already at risk of bankruptcy, Russia’s unwillingness to cough up the capital needed to keep its private sector afloat during the pandemic could come at the cost of a much longer and more painful recession. 

Limited Support Measures

• Wage support: Putin announced that the government would provide direct financial support to small- and medium-sized businesses in the form of minimum wage salary payments. With Russia’s minimum wage set at 12,130 rubles ($162) per month, this measure falls significantly short of average wages in the country that are about $623. These funds will also only be available beginning May 18, leaving companies with a relatively long period to bridge before receiving the support. The total size of this package will limit its reach to only a fifth of Russians currently employed by small- and medium-sized enterprises as well.
• Interest-free loans: The government will also guarantee 75 percent of the value of interest-free loans to businesses to pay wages. However, only the first six months of these loans will be interest-free, after which a (still favorable) rate of 4 percent will be applied. The government has also only allocated 150 billion rubles ($2 billion) to this scheme, which will severely limit the scope of its application. In addition, banks have been reluctant to provide these loans without a way to recover the added work and bureaucratic requirements attached to them through interests.
• Subsidized loans: For so-called “backbone industries,” which the government is still trying to define, the government has promised to subsidize loans for working capital at the central bank’s rate (currently at 6%). The Ministry of Finance will also guarantee half the size of these loans to the commercial banks offering them. In addition to wage, these loans can also be spent on new equipment or the acquisition of stock. But they still only provide limited relief to the sectors Moscow deems crucial to the Russian economy.
• Airline and region-specific bailouts: Moscow will also set 23 billion rubles ($307 million) aside to directly support the country’s airline industry, as well as another 200 billion rubles ($2.7 billion) to support Russia’s regions. These underwhelming amounts come in far below the estimated $1.4 billion in losses that Russian airlines face, and vast shortages of reserves - which currently total only a mere $10 billion outside of Moscow - across 70 percent of Russia’s 83 regional governments.

Russia’s Fiscal Frugality

Russia's reluctance to divert its vast financial reserves toward more stimulus spending is restraining its ability to offer more significant COVID-19 relief measures, which explains why its support efforts have so far been largely based on reducing regulatory requirements for businesses or providing limited direct support. This fiscal restraint is baked into Russia’s economic legislation, which doesn’t allow the federal budget to spend more than 0.5 percent of its GDP (about $8 billion) over the government’s actual revenues. Instead, Russia’s reserves are automatically allocated to replace missed government revenues when oil prices (one of the main sources of government revenue) fall below the level at which the budget was calculated. This allows Russia to extend these reserves, and its budget, over longer periods of crisis. Right now, however, this means that Russia faces the difficult challenge of reallocating funds within its established budget, and inevitably cutting spending in some planned projects, in order to redirect as much of its finances as possible toward the COVID-19 response and support measures.

This has so far resulted in limited COVID-19 measures that Russia’s business community have deemed ineffective. Russia has attempted to convince businesses not to lay off its employees to avoid the burden of unemployment support and reduced economic activity. But its limited COVID-19 measures have yet to decisively convince employers to forgo layoffs. Over 16 percent of Russian private companies have already made staff reductions due to the COVID-19 crisis, and up to 31 percent more are expecting to conduct layoffs in the near future. 

But even if the government were able to successfully stem additional layoffs, wage cuts and forced unpaid leave will still significantly reduce the income of Russia’s workforce. By impacting domestic consumption, this will, in turn, cause the crisis to reverberate further throughout the Russian economy. Declining expendable incomes could further restrict retail sales as well, which already dropped by 35 percent in April amid stay-at-home measures to contain the virus.

Risks Beyond COVID-19

Some projections have indicated that even with these support measures, up to 30 percent of Russian companies remain at risk of bankruptcy. The government has imposed a moratorium for at least six months on processing bankruptcies, but the financial situation of companies is unlikely to be rectified by the time this moratorium is lifted. Particular sectors at risk of bankruptcy include trade, transportation, real estate, construction, technology and heavy industry. This means that the impact of such bankruptcies could be spread widely across Russia’s economy, though they will most likely be concentrated among smaller, more vulnerable businesses.

Employment and industrial activity will pick up again over time once the COVID-19 pandemic has waned. However, the purchasing power of Russia’s population will most likely continue to erode, constricting domestic consumption. This ongoing dynamic has failed to rectify itself since the country’s 2015-17 economic crisis, generating a downward pressure throughout most of Russia’s economy. In addition to this, defaults on existing household debt or even corporate debt in the case of bankruptcies could threaten the stability of Russia’s banking sector. The full extent of the havoc COVID-19 could wreak on the Russian economy remains to be seen, but the crisis is certain to exacerbate the cracks in Russia’s economic foundation. 

Could Lasers Help Expedite the Process of Identifying Coronavirus? Right now, the rapid and accurate detection of the novel coronavirus is of paramount importance. by Mauricio Terrones

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work. 

The big idea

The most common type of test for the new coronavirus takes several hours and is uncomfortable; samples are obtained by sliding a swab into the nose or throat.

Shining a laser onto virus samples trapped in mesh of carbon nanotubes will produce a signature ‘reflection.’ Penn State University, 

I am collaborating with other scientists, including Yin-Ting Yeh at Penn State, Elodie Ghedin at New York University, Shengxi Huang at Penn State and Sharon X. Huang at Penn State, on a diagnostic tool to rapidly trap and identify viruses using a laser beam and a detector. The team includes myself, a physicist, as well virologists, engineers, chemists and data scientists.

How we do the work

Our approach uses a technique called Raman spectroscopy to identify viruses by shining a light on a disposable cartridge that collects samples from oral cotton swabs or a person blowing through the device. Once a sample is collected, a spectrometer measures the interatomic vibrations that result from shining the light on the collected viruses. Each virus has its own signature vibrations, which act as a sort of optical fingerprint that can distinguish the coronavirus from, for example, the virus that causes influenza.

We could capture viruses from patients’ saliva taken with a swab or by a person blowing through a device, called a microfluidic cartridge. The air and liquid pass an array of carbon nanotubes, cylinder-shape molecules used in different materials.

The diameters of the nanotubes are microscopic, between 10-60 nanometers. Because they are smaller than microbes – flu viruses range from 90-120 nanometers in diameter and coronaviruses range from 125-150nm in diameter – the pathogens collect on the carbon nanotubes. Once trapped by passing through the carbon nanotubes, the viruses can be optically identified by shining a laser on the sample. Shining the light on the carbon nanotubes and pathogens creates a distinctive optical fingerprint, or “Raman peaks.”

After the laser shines on the trapped sample, machine learning algorithms identify the signature spectrum of the virus that results from the light that bounces off the virus particles. With the assistance of machine learning, the identification takes less than two minutes with an accuracy rate of up to 70% to 90%, comparable to state-of-the-art microbiology techniques.

Why it matters

Right now, the rapid and accurate detection of the novel coronavirus is of paramount importance. While Raman spectroscopy has the potential to be enormously helpful in identifying this virus, doctors can also use this technique to test for other illnesses, such as influenza. By identifying the virus easily, quickly and at the point of contact, Raman spectroscopy could significantly halt disease spread.

Compare that to our current methods of analyzing samples; a process that is relatively slow, tedious, labor intensive and requires extensive scrutiny at laboratories. Early and rapid detection with this new device has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

What other work is being done

For the identification of viruses, existing technologies do provide relatively sensitive detection. However, they take several hours and sometime days depending on the quality of the sample collected because low virus concentrations are very difficult to process and results in false negatives.

Unfortunately, both immune- and molecular-based methods, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), require prior knowledge of the strains. Another technique known as deep sequencing is another promising new approach, but obtaining sufficient viral reads for it to work well depends on the quality of the sample and its preparation. Processing steps involve incorporating different benchtop equipment, reagents and technical expertise. This Raman technique has been recently developed to identify different bacteria, thus demonstrating the technique is indeed novel and viable.

What’s next

We are applying for federal funds to demonstrate that this technology works for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that cause COVID-19, and then build reliable prototypes that can be scaled up for mass production and field deployment. We are also talking with several manufacturers and exploring ways to move the technology forward to help in the current crisis.

We have been successful in capturing human respiratory viruses from clinical samples using this technique. Eventually, we foresee this technology becoming available to anyone visiting their family doctor. Within two minutes, a person would know whether you have a respiratory virus by comparing the result of the spectroscopy test with other results in a database. In the future, this technology could be at hospitals, airports and inside commercial aircraft to avoid outbreaks. And the captured viruses, still viable, can be replicated to develop a vaccine.

Coronavirus As the Spark for a U.S.-North Korea Nuclear Deal? "Perhaps the COVID crisis could do some good by creating political cover (or an excuse) for the United States to offer sanctions relief to North Korea out of humanitarian concern. That could facilitate the revival of a deal that has yet to come to fruition." by Devin Stewart

It’s always difficult to discern the goings-on inside North Korea--much less its future. If the failure of the wild speculations to materialize about a provocative “Christmas gift” last December did not teach commentators that lesson, then the recent unfounded rumors about Kim Jong-un’s health surely did. Or is that wishful thinking? South Korea’s unification minister rightly condemned these rumors as “fake news,” and cautioned about their harmful impact. 

But if we look at North Korea’s recent gestures and the international context, we can reasonably guess a few unexciting things about the future of the Korean Peninsula. Overall, the year 2020 looks like a dud all around: the economy, diplomacy, jobs, solidarity. And that also goes for peace between the Koreas. If we look at current trends, this year will likely see little progress with North Korea--with a tiny chance of upside, best case scenario.

One optimistic interpretation of the nonappearance of a provocative Christmas gift, such as a nuclear or ICBM test, is that Kim prefers doing business with Trump due to this administration’s unorthodox approach. This interpretation would wager that Kim and Trump would, therefore, avoid provoking one another or embarrassing one another politically. 

It also presumes that Kim thinks that Trump will win reelection this November, but the devastation from the COVID crisis is dragging him down in the polls. Meanwhile, the total deterioration of U.S.-China relations provides North Korea with a divided, polarized international community. And North-South Korean relations are bad, too. Firing guns at one another doesn’t exactly say “brotherly love.” 

If Kim believes Trump will lose the election, North Korea will continue to develop its nuclear weapons technology and might overplay its hand if Trump and Kim do end up meeting, thus guaranteeing no deal--as Kim did at the summit in Hanoi last year. 

The Hanoi failure did serve to remind observers how important sanctions relief is for North Korea, however. And it showed that the United States may have been willing to offer a peace declaration and diplomatic liaison offices if the deal were right. Indeed, while North Korea has been sending friendly signals to Russia and China, the CIA director nominee said he believes Pyongyang would give up “some” of its nuclear arsenal for sanctions relief. 

That leaves a tiny shred of hope. Crises can have counterintuitive effects. Here’s an idea: Perhaps the COVID crisis could do some good by creating political cover (or an excuse) for the United States to offer sanctions relief to North Korea out of humanitarian concern. That could facilitate the revival of a deal that has yet to come to fruition.

Chinese Warships Are Now Armed with Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles "A volley of the YJ-12s could pose a significant threat to even the most sophisticated air defense system. It also has a large warhead that could make it potentially quite devastating even to capital warships such as aircraft carriers." by Peter Suciu

The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has increased the potency of its Luhai-class Type 051B destroyer, Shenzhen (DD 167), with 16 container launchers for YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile. The warship, the only one of its class, first entered service in 1999 and was commissioned by the PLAN Navy South Sea Fleet as its flagship. It was originally armed with the YJ-83 subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), which have been described as being comparable to the U.S. Navy's Harpoon.

The YJ-83 boasted an impressive range, but it lacked the strategic impact of the YJ-12 – which has both speed and range. Forbes noted that a volley of the YJ-12s could pose a significant threat to even the most sophisticated air defense system. It also has a large warhead that could make it potentially quite devastating even to capital warships such as aircraft carriers.

Also known as the CM-302 in its export name, the YJ-12 employs a ramjet engine that allows it to cruise at supersonic speed Mach 2 to 3, or a maximum range of 280 to 400 kilometers per hour. The missile reportedly utilizes an inertial guidance system that is coupled with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The new missiles are also reportedly being refitted to the PLAN's Sovremenny-class destroyers, which are based on Russian designs from when China upgraded its defense capabilities with Russian technology.

At the time of its introduction of the Shenzhen, it was the largest surface combatant vessel ever commissioned by the PLAN, but despite its increased size and displacement, the destroyer did not feature any significant improvements in weapons systems and sensors and was largely seen to be deployed with rather "meager armament," which include a single HHQ-7 short-range anti-aircraft missile launch, just four twin 76mm guns, and the eight YJ-83 anti-ship missiles.

All this explains the efforts of the Chinese to refit and upgrade the warship. It had been spotted undergoing a modernization refit at the Zhanjiang Naval Base in 2015, which included some significant improvements in its weapons and sensors. In recent years the warship's Type 381A radar was upgraded to the Type 382 and additional Type 364 radar systems.

Last November the Shenzhen returned from its most recent major refit, which included the installation of an HHQ-16 vertical launch system consisting of four sets of eight units and allows it to host 32 ship-to-air missiles to shoot down incoming hostile aircraft and missiles. This replaced the single HHQ-7 SAM launch on the bow deck.

Forbes noted that China's first-generation of modern warships, including the Shenzhen, are unlikely to be as capable as newer and larger types, these upgrades will ensure the ability to pack a heavy punch. 

The Shenzhen has participated in numerous military operations, but it also worth noting that it has made port calls to numerous countries, making it a star in naval diplomacy. It now has even more to show off.

Why Human Challenge Trials Will Be Necessary to Get a Coronavirus "Is the risk to volunteers too high? Firefighters and physicians take on risk for the social good, as do kidney donors. Over a thousand people have already volunteered to be considered for a challenge trial. I believe that as with firefighters, physicians and kidney donors, we should accept the choices of the volunteers as rational and well informed. They should have our gratitude and our thanks." by Alex Tabarrok

What if we develop a vaccine for COVID-19 but can’t find enough patients to run a randomized clinical trial? It sounds absurd, but this problem has happened in the past. Ebola was identified in 1976, and candidate vaccines were proven safe and effective in mice and primates in 2004 and 2005, respectively. But no human vaccine was produced because it was extremely difficult, bordering on impossible, to trial an Ebola vaccine. The problem? Ebola is so deadly that people take precautionary measures long before a vaccine can be tested. 

Vaccines are intended to prevent disease in healthy people, so they’re tested for efficacy in healthy populations. But to test a vaccine, you need a population of still-healthy people who might get sick. An Ebola vaccine was eventually approved only because in 2014, in the midst of an Ebola outbreak, trials were started in Guinea. Even in these cases, however, there wasn’t enough time nor a large enough population to run a randomized, clinical trial—so an adaptive, ring vaccination trial was designed. The vaccine proved successful, at least under some statistical assumptions, and the vaccine was approved, but because the trial was not a pure randomized trial, the results remain controversial.

When a COVID-19 vaccine is available, it will be necessary to find a large population of people who are still at high risk of contracting COVID-19. This may be difficult. In developing countries, which may not be able to contain the virus, herd immunity may have developed. In richer countries, social distancing, testing and other measures may have made the probability of infection relatively low. China, for example, has tested a vaccine in primates. But China no longer has enough COVID-19 cases to test a vaccine in China. An Oxford group has started clinical trials in humans but if their vaccine isn’t very effective, they may need much larger samples to detect an effect. A natural group to consider for a vaccine trial would be health care workers.

Even health care workers, however, have a low enough infection rate that you either need many months to determine if there is a significant effect, or you need large populations. In Italy, about 6,000 doctors were infected over two months, out of a population of about 241,000 Italian doctors. This is a monthly infection rate of 1.2 percent. If the vaccine is 50 percent effective, then to detect this within a month, you need a sample size of 7,776 people equally divided between a vaccinated group and a non-vaccinated group. You could run the test in a smaller sample of 1,322 but then the trial would take six months. A more effective vaccine would make detecting an effect easier, but flu vaccines work at 40 to 60 percent effectiveness, so an assumption of 50 percent is not unreasonable.

But will Italian doctors still be getting infected at a rate of 1.2 percent per month when a vaccine becomes available for trial in six months or a year? We hope not. The hope is that social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment will have greatly lowered the infection rate. A low infection rate is great, unless you want to properly test a vaccine.

There is a second, related problem. Historically, most vaccine candidates fail. Thus, in a year or two, we want many vaccine candidates, not just one. But even if we are fortunate and have, say, seven vaccine candidates available, it probably won’t be possible to run efficacy trials on all seven candidates. The efficacy trial bottleneck may reduce us to three or fewer candidates, but then we are gambling because none of the trials may prove successful.

The efficacy-trial bottleneck motivates the use of challenge trials. In a challenge trial, healthy individuals are split into two groups, one half vaccinated, the other not, and then both groups are infected or “challenged” with the virus. No waiting for natural infections here. (Some healthy people also need to be infected prior to the trial to determine the appropriate dose of virus to match or not exceed the natural infection.)

The virtue of a challenge trial is that the results would be available very quickly, within a few weeks, and using only a small population. If the vaccine is 50 percent effective, for example, then we would need around 100 volunteers or perhaps even fewer depending on how many people exposed to the virus in laboratory conditions contract the disease.

By advancing a vaccine by many months, a challenge trial could save many thousands of lives and spare the world the huge economic costs of the lockdowns and social distancing that we will be using to combat the virus.

Challenge trials have been used many times in the past, including with Edward Jenner’s first cowpox vaccine for smallpox in 1796, but many people consider them a last-resort because of the ethical issues inherent in exposing healthy people to disease.

The risks to the challenged, however, can be minimized along several dimensions. First, COVID-19 mortality rates are much lower for healthy individuals under the age of forty, so volunteers would be carefully selected and closely monitored. For those individuals who contracted COVID-19, treatment could begin even before symptoms fully manifest by using an endpoint of viral load (particles). Volunteers could also be drawn from health care workers whose probability of contracting the disease at some point is already relatively high, thus minimizing the opportunity cost of the risk. We can also hope that by the time a candidate vaccine is ready for trial, there will be effective drugs and treatment regimes, again reducing the risk to the volunteers. It’s also important to remember that an ordinary vaccine trial is not without risk—a vaccine could backfire and make the disease worse—so exposing fifty or so volunteers to the virus in a challenge trial must be balanced against exposing thousands to a potentially dangerous vaccine in an ordinary clinical trial.

Is the risk to volunteers too high? Firefighters and physicians take on risk for the social good, as do kidney donors. Over a thousand people have already volunteered to be considered for a challenge trial. I believe that as with firefighters, physicians and kidney donors, we should accept the choices of the volunteers as rational and well informed. They should have our gratitude and our thanks.