fbpx

Month: April 2020

ente rarse

La nueva herramienta contra la lucha de los virus, la edición genética: en qué consiste y por qué deberíamos estar entusiasmados con esta nueva tecnología?

Actualmente, la humanidad está atravesando un gran desafío impuesto por el Coronavirus. Las fronteras están siendo cerradas, las aerolíneas suspendiendo sus operaciones y algunos negocios cerrando sus puertas.

Simultáneamente, científicos, investigadores y profesionales de la salud se encuentran arduamente trabajando en nuevos tratamientos que permitan encontrar pronto una solución a la pandemia producida por el COVID-19.

Probablemente, lidiar con el coronavirus y sus consecuencias debe ser uno de los retos más grandes que el mundo contemporáneo ha enfrentado en las ultimas décadas. Sin embargo, no será el ultimo virus que debamos enfrentar.

Por tal motivo, se vuelve importante abrazar a las biociencias y permitir una mayor apertura a la aplicación de métodos de alteración de genes.

Para comprender mejor las ventajas que brinda la biociencia y cómo esta puede mejorar considerablemente nuestra calidad de vida, revisaremos las cuatro alternativas más comunes para alterar los genes de una planta o animal:

X- Men (Dr Charles Xavier) – Mutaciones naturales/espontáneas

20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox

Las mutaciones per se suceden de manera regular en la naturaleza. Fue justamente de esta manera que unos aminoácidos terminaron siendo seres humanos luego de unos miles millones de años. La evolución biológica puede suceder justamente gracias a este tipo de mutaciones. Las mutaciones naturales suceden de manera aleatoria o son causadas por factores exógenos como la radiación (p. ej. el sol). Para los amantes de los cómics entre nosotros, las mutaciones que tienen lugar en “X-men” son un ejemplo de mutaciones naturales, debido a que (en muchos casos) ocurren de manera espontánea.

Hulk – Mutaciones por exposición (mutágenos)

Imagen de Alexander Gounder en Pixabay
Imagen de Alexander Gounder en Pixabay

Una de las formas más comunes de manipular semillas es a través de la exposición a la radiación y esperar a mutaciones positivas (p. ej. una resistencia mayor a plagas). Este método es muy común desde 1950 y es un método bastante preciso en la búsqueda de obtener plantaciones más resistentes o agradables para el consumo. Sin embargo, requiere de miles de intentos para obtener un resultado deseable. Este método es ampliamente utilizado y legal en gran parte de los países. En nuestro universo de cómics, Hulk seria un buen ejemplo de este tipo de mutaciones causadas por la radiación.

Spiderman- Organismos genéticamente modificados (transgénicos OGM)

Imagen de djedj en Pixabay
Imagen de djedj en Pixabay

El método utilizado para la creación de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) suele ser temido por muchos. El procedimiento se basa en insertar los genes de una especie en otra especie. En la mayor parte de los casos, las plantaciones de transgénicos OGM han sido inyectadas con la proteína de otra planta o bacteria que permite a la plantación o cosecha desarrollarse de manera más acelerada o resistente hacia ciertas plagas.

Otros ejemplos pueden palparse en el cruce del salmón con la tilapia que permite al salmón crecer de manera mucho más acelerada. Un ejemplo a nivel de los cómics para este caso es Spider-man, mejor conocido como el “hombre araña”. Luego de ser mordido por una araña, puede escalar rascacielos y desarrollar una agilidad sobrehumana gracias a su potenciado ADN aracno-humano (transgénico).

GATTACA / La Ira de Khan- Edición genética (las tijeras de la biociencia)

Screenshot de Star Trek: La ira de Kahn | https://www.espinof.com/criticas/especial-star-trek-star-trek-2-la-ira-de-khan-de-nicholas-meyer
Screenshot de Star Trek: La ira de Kahn | https://www.espinof.com/criticas/especial-star-trek-star-trek-2-la-ira-de-khan-de-nicholas-meyer

Super villanos libre de gluten: La edición genética no se trata de super humanos, sino de mantenernos y darnos una vida saludable

Este método puede llevarse a cabo en personas adultas que se encuentra vivas, lo cual significa una gran oportunidad sobre todo para aquellos que sufren trastornos genéticos. La edición genética permite “reparar” los genes en organismos vivos. Este método también es miles de veces más preciso que el método de bombardear con radiación. Algunos ejemplos son la desactivación del gen responsable de generar el gluten en el trigo: el resultado es trigo sin gluten para celiacos.

Existen varios métodos utilizados en la edición genética. Uno de los más populares estos días es aquel llamado CRISPR Cas-9. Estas “tijeras” son usualmente bacterias reprogramadas para transmitir un nuevo gen o desactivar genes no deseados.

Muchas novelas de ciencia ficción y películas nos muestran un futuro en el cual podemos desactivar defectos genéticos y curar a las personas de enfermedades catastróficas. Algunos ejemplos de historias de este tipo donde métodos similares al CRISPR han sido utilizados son GATTACA-La Ira de Khan, Start Trek o la serie Expanse donde la edición genética juega un rol crucial en desarrollar plantaciones para ser cultivados en el espacio.

Qué relación tiene todo esto con el Coronavirus?

Biólogos sintéticos han comenzado a utilizar CRISPR para recrear de manera artificial partes del coronavirus en un intento de producir una vacuna en contra de esta afección del sistema respiratorio para desarrollarla de manera masiva y rápida.

Gracias a la combinación de simulaciones computarizadas con inteligencia artificial, este proceso acelera la producción de una vacuna de años a cuestión de meses. De igual forma, en tiempos de crisis las instituciones encargadas de aprobar nuevas pruebas y procedimientos para este tipo de tecnología como la DEA en los EEUU han demostrado estar a la altura de las circunstancias.

El CRISPR permite también identificar genes específicos en un virus. Esto ha permitido a los investigadores construir de manera rápida y sencilla tests para ser utilizados en los pacientes con coronavirus.

En el largo plazo, la edición de genes nos permitiría ampliar la inmunidad que poseemos los seres humanos para alterar nuestros genes y convertirnos más resistentes a los virus y las bacterias.

Esta no será la última crisis

Mientras el coronavirus pone a prueba nuestra sociedad contemporánea, también necesitamos ser conscientes de que este no será el último patógeno que tendrá el potencial de matar millones de personas. Si no contamos con mucha suerte, el COVID-19 podría tener alguna mutación que lo haga mucho más difícil de combatir.

El próximo virus, hongo o bacteria letal podría estar a la vuelta de la esquina. Por este motivo, debemos adaptarnos y aceptar las nuevas innovaciones en biotecnología y evitar bloquear las investigaciones genéticas que están teniendo lugar y la aplicación de sus resultados.

En estos momentos, varias prohibiciones se encuentran en vigencia bloqueando la posibilidad de utilizar innovaciones como la del CRISPR en pacientes alrededor del mundo. Debemos repensar aquella hostilidad que existe hacia la ingeniería genética y aceptarla por lo que es, una alternativa prometedora para nuestra supervivencia. Para ser franco, siempre nos encontramos en aquella disyuntiva entre nuevas enfermedades que aparecen y la necesidad de implementar herramientas innovadoras como el CRISPR que podrían salvar millones de vidas.

by Julio Clavijo

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

waterloo chronicle

Emergency order for cannabis puts Waterloo’s Bud & Sally back in business

Province reverses decision on weed retailers, allowing them to stay in business to continue fight against black market

People will soon be able to pickup cannabis curbside from local licensed retailers like Bud & Sally in uptown Waterloo.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has reversed its previous decision to ban cannabis retailers from operating, meaning that individual stores can now provide curbside pickup and delivery options.

“To continue the fight against the illegal cannabis market and support cannabis retail store operators and legal recreational cannabis consumers, the Government of Ontario has issued an Emergency Order to temporarily allow authorized cannabis retail stores to offer delivery and curbside pickup,” the AGCO stated in a media release on Tuesday.

“These changes are effective immediately and will last for the duration of the period of declared provincial emergency, with the possibility of extension if the government’s Emergency Order on business closures is extended.”

On March 17, Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared a state of emergency in Ontario, because of COVID-19, and ordered the closure of non-essential businesses. Authorized cannabis retail stores were initially deemed essential businesses. On April 3, a revised list was issued, further reducing the number of essential businesses, and cannabis retail stores were among those that had been ordered to close as of April 4.

John Radostits, who just opened Waterloo’s Bud & Sally in mid-March, had questioned what appeared to be a double standard, as delivery of alcohol with takeout food had been OK’d by the province and the online Ontario Cannabis Store continued to provide delivery of cannabis.

“Yes good news from the AGCO,” he said Wednesday, in an email. “We are currently working on our plan to open with the curbside pickup ASAP.

“All customers will have to visit our website www.budandsally.com and order from our full catalogue and pay in advance for all cannabis and accessories. The next step will be to come to the storefront sidewalk (32 King St. S) and we will bring the order out to them. We are currently updating our website and should be ready within the next day or so.”

Radostits said he’ll also be looking at the logistics of adding a delivery option, moving forward.

David Clement, Toronto-based North American affairs manager for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), said the only issue with the ACGO’s announcement is that the allowance is temporary.

“Prohibiting retailers from offering delivery was always a silly and misguided policy,” said Clement.

“Once everything has returned to normal, our hope is that retailers will continue to be allowed to offer delivery options for their consumers. Allowing for retailers to deliver will help the legal market compete with the black market, which is something that everyone should be on board with.”

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Global Consumer Group Calls for Defunding WHO, Praises Trump’s Probe

Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group, is launching a campaign to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) and is praising President Donald Trump for his remarks at Tuesday’s coronavirus press briefing when he said he would be looking into the massive funding the United States gives to WHO annually.

Trump at the press briefing criticized how WHO had not been transparent about the coronavirus and its genesis and evolution in China.

“They called it wrong … we’re gonna put a hold on money spent to the WHO,” Trump said. “We’re going to put a very powerful hold on it.”

“It’s a good thing when it works, but when they call every shot wrong, that’s no good,” Trump said.

“President Trump’s decision speaks to the larger inefficiencies and issues of transparency and accountability that have plagued the World Health Organization in recent years,” Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, said in a statement he distributed to the press.

“While the failures of the WHO have only recently gotten publicity, this has been a long time coming,” Ossowski said.

Ossowski outlined some of those inefficiencies in his statement.

“It has been revealed that the WHO spends up to $200 million per year, or $28,500 per staffer, on travel costs alone, more than the budgets of combatting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined,” Ossowski said. “Not to mention they’ve been known to host extravagant galas and conferences that do not further global public health.”

“We witnessed this during the Ebola epidemic in western Africa in 2013-14, where the WHO was too slow to respond and inadequate in health policies, and we’re seeing it in realtime with COVID-19,” Ossowski said.

“The WHO and its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have cozied up to the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the outbreak and praised their failures,” Ossowski said. “Even as late as January 19th, the WHO parroted the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative that human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus was very unlikely.”

“Now is the time to send a clear signal that the WHO needs to be transparent and accountable for their failures,” Ossowski said.

“In 2017, Consumer Choice Center led the efforts in calling on the United States and member nations to cut funding to the WHO to realign their priorities toward health emergencies such as the very real pandemic we currently face,” Ossowski said. “The WHO has failed in its principal mission and it needs to be defunded. We applaud President Trump for his bold move.”

According to the World Health Organization, the United States as a “member state” has an assessed contribution owed to the organization for 2020-2021 of $115,766,922.

The United States is the largest donor to the World Health Organization of all countries that are member states.

“We’re going to make a determination about what we’re doing,” Trump said at the daily coronavirus press briefing on Wednesday at the White House.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

L'opinion

Coronavirus: la fièvre monte autour de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et elle est politique

Non sans arrière-pensées électorales, Donald Trump rejoint la cohorte des détracteurs de l’OMS et de sa gestion de la crise

Alors que près de 1,5 million de personnes dans le monde ont été infectées à ce jour par le coronavirus et que plus de 83 000 en sont mortes, selon les données recueillies par la Johns Hopkins University à la date de mercredi, la fièvre monte dangereusement autour de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), l’agence des Nations unies pour la santé publique créée en 1948.

S’ajoutant aux critiques émises par beaucoup au sujet du temps perdu au début de la crise pour tirer la sonnette d’alarme, Donald Trump est monté au créneau, mardi, en reprochant à l’OMS de s’être focalisée sur la Chine et d’avoir formulé de mauvais conseils au sujet de l’épidémie. Avant de faire machine arrière, l’hôte de la Maison Blanche, dont les arrière-pensées sont surtout politiques, a menacé de suspendre la contribution américaine à l’organisation.

Ce serait plus qu’un coup dur alors que les Etats-Unis sont les plus gros contributeurs au budget de l’agence –4,8 milliards de dollars pour 2020-2021 entre contributions et dons volontaires et environ 1 milliard de dollars lors de l’exercice 2016-2017, soit un tiers de l’enveloppe totale. Suivent la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates, le fondateur de Microsoft, avec quelque 600 millions de dollars ; le Royaume-Uni (près de 400 millions) ; Gavi, l’alliance du vaccin (250 millions) ; le Japon (250 millions) et l’Allemagne (200 millions).

La Chine n’arrive qu’au quatorzième rang des donateurs avec 100 millions de dollars, à quasi-égalité avec la France

Susceptibilité. Dans ce tableau, la Chine n’arrive qu’au quatorzième rang des donateurs avec 100 millions de dollars, à quasi-égalité avec la France. Or, l’OMS, aujourd’hui dirigée par l’Ethiopien Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, est très clairement accusée d’être sous l’influence de Pékin qui avait réussi à placer l’une des siennes à sa tête entre 2006 et 2017, en la personne de Margaret Chan.

Tôt ou tard, l’organisation devra expliquer pourquoi elle a tant tardé à reconnaître le virus – apparu officiellement au début de l’année à Wuhan – comme étant transmissible à l’homme et à déclarer l’état de pandémie mondiale – ce qu’elle a finalement fait le 11 mars – si ce n’est, comme accusent les détracteurs de son directeur général, pour ménager la susceptibilité des autorités chinoises. Depuis, sa gestion de la crise et ses recommandations sont loin de faire l’unanimité dans le monde. « Est-il raisonnable de continuer à exclure Taïwan de l’OMS ? » s’interrogeait notamment, début mars, dans les colonnes de l’Opinion, le représentant de Taïpei à Paris, en faisant valoir que l’île (379 cas, 5 morts à ce jour) avait réussi à juguler l’épidémie.

« Il y a un clair besoin de redessiner la mission et la structure de l’Organisation. Aujourd’hui, elle est loin d’être réactive. Elle devrait mener la bataille pas la suivre » commente pour l’Opinion Peter J. Pitts, consultant de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA), l’autorité américaine en matière de médicaments.

« C’est vrai que c’est un organisme international et qu’il ne peut susciter entièrement un consensus. L’OMS doit avoir la capacité et le désir de mener les choses en période de crise. La pandémie actuelle montre qu’elle n’a ni le talent, ni la volonté pour le faire » ajoute l’ancien numéro deux de la FDA, en se démarquant toutefois des récentes critiques de l’hôte de la Maison Blanche. « Le Président Trump cherche quelqu’un à blâmer. Mes commentaires sont un appel à reconnaître et à résoudre le problème. Comme on dit en anglais “Don’t fix the blame. Fix the problem”, c’est-à-dire ne jetons pas l’opprobe, réglons le problème. »

Outre le fait qu’il n’a pas dû apprécier les critiques de Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus sur sa décision de suspendre les liaisons aériennes avec la Chine, en mars dernier, l’hôte de la Maison Blanche ne fait qu’ajouter l’OMS à la liste des coupables à présenter aux Américains à l’approche de l’élection présidentielle du 3 novembre. Pékin y figure déjà en bonne place et si Donald Trump ne parle plus du « virus chinois » comme il le faisait encore il y a peu pour parler du Covid-19, ses amis du parti républicain ne manquent pas d’incriminer Pékin au Congrès et sur les ondes pour la crise sanitaire et économique que traversent actuellement les Etats-Unis.

« L’OMS et son directeur général Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ont fait copain-copain avec le parti communiste chinois depuis le début de l’épidémie »

« Perroquet ». Présenté comme une organisation de consommateurs proche de la droite dure américaine et des fabricants de tabac, le Consumer Choice Center n’a pas manqué d’embrayer sur les récents propos du Président américain. « Pendant des années, l’OMS a usé de son pouvoir et de ses moyens d’une manière mal avisée contre le vapotage et l’obésité tout en négligeant ce qui devrait être sa priorité : répondre aux crises sanitaires mondiales et aux épidémies (…). On a vu durant l’épidémie Ebola en Afrique de l’Ouest en 2013-2014 qu’elle a été trop lente à réagir et inefficace en matière de politique sanitaire, et on le voit en temps réel avec le Covid-19, dénonçait, mercredi, dans un communiqué Yaël Ossowski, son directeur adjoint. L’OMS et son directeur général Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ont fait copain-copain avec le parti communiste chinois depuis le début de l’épidémie. Le 19 janvier, ils ont même répété comme un perroquet la version du PCC selon laquelle la transmission du virus de l’homme à l’homme était improbable. Maintenant, il est temps d’envoyer un clair signal pour que l’OMS devienne transparente et rende des comptes pour ses échecs. »

Même si le débat sera sans doute plus feutré, l’organisation qui emploie 8 200 personnes dans 150 pays du monde n’échappera sans doute pas à une remise en question de son organisation et de ses actions.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Pypnka rubryka

Як боротьба з коронавірусом може вбити демократію: що відбувається в Європі

Нам знадобилося 75 років, щоб відновити свободу в деяких частинах Європи після тоталітарних жахів Другої світової війни та менше трьох тижнів, щоб знову поставити її на коліна. З коронавірусом на задньому плані, по Європі проносяться тривожні ерозії свободи слова та засобів масової інформації.

Так, минулого тижня парламент Угорщини прийняв закон, який дозволяє лідеру націоналістичного руху країни Віктору Орбану керувати країною безстроково. Закон дає змогу уряду Орбана ув’язнити будь-кого, хто оприлюднив помилкові факти, що заважають “успішному захисту” охорони здоров’я, або можуть створити “плутанину або заворушення”, пов’язані з коронавірусом. Така велика свобода розсуду з боку влади — це смертний вирок свободі слова, що є наріжним каменем демократії.

Віктор Орбан

Свобода слова відіграє найважливішу роль у встановленні відповідальності між урядом та його електоратом, а також забезпечує існування недискримінаційного взаємного потоку спілкування. Коли уряди монополізують цю свободу, демократія — в небезпеці. Віктор Орбан обрав правильну ціль. Навіть незважаючи на те, що Орбан запевняє, що ці закони будуть зняті, коли пандемія закінчиться, політичне минуле Орбана свідчить про протилежне. З часу своєї перемоги у 2010 році Орбан посилив державний контроль над засобами масової інформації, щоб придушити будь-яку опозицію та поетапно підірвати систему стримувань та противаг. “Демократія не обов’язково є ліберальною; Навіть коли державна політика не є ліберальною, вона все ще може бути демократією”, — вважає Орбан.

З такою проблемою зіткнулась не лише Угорщина. У Сербії постанова уряду про централізацію інформації під час надзвичайної ситуації з коронавірусом стала причиною арештів. Першого квітня після повідомлення про дефіцит захисного медичного обладнання, доступного для персоналу медичного центру в Сербії, сербська журналістка Ана Лалич була затримана. Лалич звинуватили у громадських заворушеннях за поширенні неправдивих новин під час надзвичайної ситуації.

Анна Лалич

У Польщі Міністерство охорони здоров’я заборонило медичним консультантам ділитись незалежними висновками щодо епідеміологічної ситуації, стану лікарень та методів захисту від інфекції. За поширення аналогічної інформації лікарів можуть звільнити.

Словенія та Чехія повністю заборонили присутність журналістів на офіційних прес-конференціях. Словенська журналістка, яка подала запит про вжиті урядом заходи щодо боротьби з пандемією, стала об’єктом розмитої кампанії ЗМІ, близької до політичної партії, яка очолює урядову коаліцію, за словами комісара з прав людини Ради Європи Дуни Міятович.

Вільні вибори є ключовою рисою демократичних режимів, але самі по собі є недостатніми. Справжня демократія не може існувати без громадянських прав і, зокрема, права на опір через протести, свободу слова та вільні ЗМІ. 

І на даний момент тяжко уявити кращий привід для швидкого поширення неліберальних ідей, ніж надзвичайна ситуація в галузі охорони здоров’я.

Віктор Орбан / Фото Reuters

Неліберальні уряди вкладають стільки грошей в пропаганду не просто так. Корінь їхньої сили полягає у штучно створених і страхітливих потужних розповідях, які неодноразово і послідовно поширюються, піддаючи цензурі кожен голос незгоди. Свобода вираження поглядів є для демократії тим самим, чим право приватної власності є для економіки. Монополізація одного з них веде до смерті демократії.

Тому вся Європа опинилася в глухому куті. З одного боку, ця пандемія може відвернути нас від неліберальних ідей навіки.

З іншого боку, цей кошмар може перетворитися на постійну реальність Європи, надавши урядам карт-бланш для прийняття суворих законів. Важко придумати більш ефективний спосіб придушити будь-яку потенційну непокору, ніж через використання страху за своє здоров’я. Завдяки високій трансмісивності коронавірусу, цей страх включає також батьків, друзів і буквально всіх дорогих нам людей. Це надає неліберальним урядам можливість маскувати свої тоталітарні ідеї як частину екстрених заходів для припинення пандемії. 

Демократія вкорінюється у свободі слова та медіа, і ми маємо її захищати за будь-яку ціну.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Comment Central

What the NHS can learn from Germany’s Hospital System

Post-Coronavirus, the UK should not shy away from debate over the NHS, and how to achieve better patient outcomes, argues Fred Roeder

When contrasting how countries around the world are coping with COVID-19, over the past few weeks one country has stood out. Germany’s health system has received regular praise for its resilience in facing the COVID-19 pandemic, but what are they doing right?

Germany is one of the most affected countries in Europe but the mortality rates are significantly lower than in most other European countries dealing with the coronavirus. Germany’s capacity to test widely and early has definitely contributed to this but an often underappreciated factor is its very competitive, modern, and often private hospital system.

While the UK currently has fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases, this is probably due to the lack of testing capacities of the NHS, the more interesting and shocking number is that the death rate per 1 million people is four times higher in the United Kingdom compared to Germany. Germany’s mainly private and decentralized testing infrastructure happens mostly outside of hospitals, in private laboratories, and has enabled Germany to conduct as many as 150,000 tests per week. To put that in comparison, the UK has managed less than 10,000 a day so far.

Being the relative of an NHS patient, I had to assist her to go through its byzantine and centralized testing regime, even for simple blood samples. GPs send patients to hospitals just to get their blood taken and analysed. Scaling up such a centralized testing system allows no mistakes to be made. A decentralized and independent system however allows for some parts in the chain to fail and the other still to perform, and crucially allows room for innovation.

Merely 28% of the roughly 1,950 hospitals that participate in Germany’s universal health system are owned by the government. 37% are private for profit hospitals that treat patients covered by the public health insurances and receive the same amount of reimbursement per case as the public ones or the 34% that are operated by churches and other charities. Despite charging the same as government hospitals private for-profit hospitals have the highest investment per case (about 64% higher than public hospitals), which leads to more state-of-the-art treatment and newer medical equipment.

It is also very interesting to look at how private hospitals perform better compared to government hospitals in Germany. Within the first four years one can observe an increase in efficiency of between 3.2% and 5.4% above those hospitals that had not been privatised. Despite its mainly private character Germany has nearly three times as many beds per 100,000 people compared to the UK. It gets even worse when looking at intensive care beds per 100,000. Germany has over 4 times the intensive care capacity compared to the NHS. In recent weeks Germany added another 40% additional capacity to its already high intensive care beds. This number is not reflected in the comparison.

Given that we are currently facing a massive pandemic it is shocking to see how poorly prepared the centralized NHS was, from a lack of protective equipment for clinicians, to its failure to prepare for mass testing. While the hard work of individuals within the health service has done what seemed impossible only weeks ago, and has prepared the NHS to cope with coronavirus, structural issues remain.

A pluralistic hospital system that endorses competition and patient choice such as the German one seems to be in a much better position to cope with potentially tens of thousands of severe COVID-19 cases.

Yes, also in this comparatively better German hospital system patients die and doctors contract COVID-19. Healthcare workers in Germany are also overwhelmed with the amount of cases and patients. But overall it looks like Germany can endure and face this wave in a much more prepared and resilient fashion compared to the NHS which is still facing huge problems mastering this mammoth task.

After we are all through with this we should not shy away from a debate if it’s not time to open up bigger parts of the NHS hospital systems, allow competition and make the health of British patients a priority.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

EU to retaliate: Last thing we need now is the EU-US trade war

BRUSSELS – Yesterday, the European Commission announced the European Union will impose tariffs on US exports of lighters, furniture coatings and playing cards. “The EU is adopting measures in reaction to the U.S. extension of its import duties on steel and aluminium to certain derivative products,” a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO.

Counterproductive To Impose Tariffs On US Products?

In response, Luca Bertoletti, Senior European Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center, said that “this move from the Commission is very dangerous. In a moment of crisis such as this, it appears counterproductive to impose tariffs on US products especially since the US is one of the leading partners to fight the battle against COVID-19.

“There is always what’s seen and what’s unseen. By aiming to hit the US where it hurts in a trade war, the EU will end up hurting its own consumers, not only US exporters. A peaceful transatlantic trade dependency, not a destructive trade war should be the way forward,” said Maria Chaplia, CCC European Affairs Associate.

“Trade wars are a lose-lose game. Trade agreements, on the contrary, are not only rewarding because they benefit consumers on both ends, but also because they build bridges of partnership and cooperation between nations. Sometimes victory is about choosing to restrain from retaliation. Especially, when it comes to trade,” concluded Chaplia.

Should the US impose tariffs on the EU, China, Japan or others? Let us know in the comments section.

Originally published here.

About Consumer Choice Center

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

COVID-19 Testing vs Lockdown

Testing – not lockdowns – may explain why some countries handle Covid-19 better

This is a post by a Guest Author. 
Disclaimer: The author’s views are entirely his or her own, and don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the Consumer Choice Center.

There are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic: testing or lockdown?

With so many people confined to their homes, passions are running high, and there are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic. So much so that it feels like comparing and contrasting countries and their trajectories has become sort of a global pastime.

Nearly all developed countries (and others) have put their populations under severe lockdowns and emphasized social distancing as the silver bullet against the spread of the virus. Sweden, however, has recently been castigated for failing to put its population under a lockdown like every other country, especially other Nordic countries which it is compared and contrasted against. 

The problem is that it is quite hard to compare the performance of two randomly selected countries. For instance, on every level Norway seems to be doing much better than Sweden. That said, one can always find a bunch of other countries that are doing much worse despite having been under lockdown for some time.

It should be noted that Sweden has made some questionable decisions, regardless of social distancing. It failed to ramp up testing with increasing cases around March 20, and it only closed its nursing homes for visits in early April.

But aren’t lockdowns clearly working? 

Many people have still argued that lockdowns are clearly working because the epidemic has slowed shortly after their imposition. However, it is important that we are careful when inferring that lockdowns were responsible for the decline. There may be a correlation between the two, but as everyone should know, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and there may be other intervening variables. It is vital that we not jump to conclusions too fast. While many people believe, and many epidemiological models assume, that unchecked epidemics just grow exponentially until more than half of the population gets infected, the evidence for Covid-19 increasingly suggests otherwise. 

Several research papers (e.g. here and here) argued that the dynamics of the Covid-19 pandemic are well-described by exponential functions only at the early stage, after which so-called power-law functions are a much better fit. A detailed study of the outbreak in the initially hit communes in Lombardy also suggests that in each commune, it started slowly, then briefly became exponential and then slowed, all that before any significant intervention.

To help you better understand what the mathematical jargon above means and why it is so important, consider two simple functions, y=2x and y=x2. The first function is exponential and the second function is a power-law one. You will better see the crucial difference between them if they are plotted together.

If these functions were describing an epidemic, then the x-axis would mean rounds of transmission. In the beginning there is one infected person in both cases. Then, until the fifth round the functions seem to grow in at an almost similar speed but afterwards, they diverge dramatically.

When researchers talk about an epidemic growing first exponentially and then in accordance with a power law, they mean that the growth of the epidemic looks like the hybrid function (first, y=2x and y=x2 after round 5) below. Its growth clearly slows a lot after the fifth round.

Why could an epidemic grow exponentially, first, and then slow down on its own? Here, it is important to remember that real societies are complex. Instead of interacting with random people every now and then, people tend to form groups (or clusters, in scientific terminology) and live in local areas within which interactions are much more intense than outside of them. With obvious implications for infection transmission.

What probably changes at the early stage of the epidemic is that so-called superspreader events are much likelier. Such events, where single infected people spread the virus to scores, hundreds or even thousands of people, have clearly played an enormous role in Covid-19. It is enough to mention the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in South Korea, the tragic gathering of French catholics in Mulhouse and the first coronavirus-hit hospitals in Lombardy. At these events, infected people have an opportunity to spread the virus way beyond their clusters of interactions.

After the initial stage, when everyone becomes aware that the epidemic is in the community and significant events are cancelled, the infection may get increasingly isolated within clusters, first, grow slower and then start falling off. The available data is increasingly hinting at this process in play. In Italy, cases appear to have peaked on the day the national lockdown was announced. In the US, they appear to have peaked on March 20.  

Lockdowns could even be counterproductive

A more speculative but still plausible idea is that lockdowns could, in fact, not merely coincide with the slowing-down of Covid-19 without causing it but actually create more damage than they prevent.

Many people believe that if some social distancing (like closing bars or canceling events) is desirable than extreme social distancing like lockdowns that keeps most people at home most of the time must be even more beneficial. However, this potentially ignores two important facts about Covid-19 and viral diseases in general.

First, it is abundantly clear that Covid-19 overwhelmingly spreads in closed, often poorly ventilated spaces and through close contacts. Secondly, as Robin Hanson convincingly argued, there is a wealth of evidence that the severity of viral disease depends on the viral dose received. This means that if families are forced to stay at home together all the time, this may create perfect conditions for the virus to spread and especially cause severe disease.

The data from Google about actual social distancing patterns in several countries hit by Covid-19 shows that Italy, Spain and France have had by far the most extreme social distancing, and the UK was starting to catch up with them after its lockdown. Yet, these four countries have some of the highest fatality rates in the world per population and detected cases.    

Could testing explain things better?

A better way to try to make sense of the causation is to try to identify a bunch of countries that have something important in common. The most important thing in any epidemic is to minimize deaths, and there is a group of countries that seem to have far fewer deaths by population size, and per identified infections, than others. These countries include Iceland, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Austria, and Norway. You can see how low their case fatality rates are compared to other countries with a lot of cases here (see the “death rates” column).

What makes those countries succeed in driving down deaths? One would actually be surprised to learn that none of these countries is, or was, under total lockdown. South Korea hasn’t even closed bars and restaurants. This shows that extreme social distancing measures are not necessarily the best explanation.

The real answer may largely lie in how many tests those countries have been doing compared to others. Testing may reduce fatality rates by giving public health responders valuable information and helping to isolate and quarantine those that carry the virus before they spread it to vulnerable groups like the elderly.

Iceland is the absolute champion at testing. It has already conducted 28,992 tests, which is more than 8% of its entire population. It also has the world’s lowest case fatality rate from Covid-19 at 0.38%. Iceland isn’t an anomaly, and using Iceland as an example isn’t cherry picking. Researchers Sinha, Sengupta and Ghosal showed that country death rates from Covid-19 are significantly correlated with the intensity of testing. They did not, however, control for the potential impact of lockdowns and other stringent social distancing measures.

Testing and outcomes by region

In addition to national data, one can also look at regional data where it is available and see if the testing/fatality relationship still holds. Italy has been publishing detailed regional statistics on Covid-19 starting from February 24. If we plot tests per confirmed cases in each region with reported fatalities per million inhabitants, we get the following picture:

The chart surprisingly shows us that Italy’s worst hit region isn’t Lombardy, and that it is actually the little-known Aosta Valley. We also see that there is a clear negative relationship between the intensity of testing and fatality rates. In fact, the former seems to explain more than half of the variation in the latter, and the regression coefficient is statistically significant (the p-value is 0.0003).

To conclude, it will take a long time and careful research to sort out why some countries and regions have gone through the Covid-19 pandemic much less damaged than others. That said, one thing seems to be increasingly clear. When the dust settles it will be clear that testing will be a significant factor, and that the importance of social distancing will be diminished. 

Guest Author: Daniil Gorbatenko

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Blog Post

Force Majeure during the COVID-19 Pandemic

By Linda Kavuka, Trade Policy Fellow, Consumer Choice Center

Blog Post

Confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), which first appeared in China at the end of last year, are currently over 800,000 as of April 1st 2020. What was initially seen as a largely China-centric shock has now become a global pandemic. 

Global consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have included grounding of flights and limited international travel, closure of public markets, issuance of curfews and also lock-down of countries and cities where there has been rapid spread of the virus. Governments have advised employers to allow their staff to work from home, called for closures of schools and banned all social gatherings, including religious meetings. People have been urged to observe very high levels of hygiene and to thoroughly wash hands with soap and water and use sanitizers in the alternative. 

The International business community has not been spared of the said shocks. With the end of the pandemic unclear, the economic impact is expected to be very severe globally. Considering the disruptions to international supply chains that have occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is expected that many players in the International Trade community will be caught up with non-performance of their contractual obligations, and lawsuits shall follow. Does the COVID-19 pandemic qualify for the operation of the Force Majeure clause as a relief to affected parties?

Ordinarily, when entities and individuals trade with each other, they sign contracts that legally bind them to their agreements. The contracts list obligations of the parties and also circumstances that would call for the termination or suspension of the said obligations. One of the circumstances that could excuse non-performance or termination of a contract is legally known as “Force Majeure”, one of the standard clauses of a contract. 

Article 7.1.7 (1) of the UNIDROIT Principles defines Force Majeure as follows:

“Non-performance by a party is excused if that party proves that the non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.”

If the said Impediment is temporary the defaulting party shall be excused for a reasonable period of time. The Force Majeure Clause only takes effect where the defaulting party gives notice to the other party explaining the impediment and the impact it has had on the expected performance, otherwise the defaulting party shall be liable for damages. In order for a party to rely on the Force Majeure defense, the clause must be included in their contract contract and the impediment causing non-performance of their obligation must be expressly stated.

An example of a Force Majeure clause in a Sale Contract reads as follows:

“Either party shall be relieved of all responsibility for any failure or delay for the carrying out of their obligations hereunder due to product discontinuation, manufacturer price changes, supplier price changes, changing market conditions, strikes, riots, civil unrest or an act of civil or military authority, combinations or restrictions of work, Act of God, war, insurrection, fire not caused by its act or omission or that of its servants or invitees on the property, tempest, industrial disputes, an act of a public enemy, a boycott, embargoes, failure of communications systems unavoidable accident or any other circumstances beyond its reasonable control whether or not the same be ejusedem generis with those above.”

Since Pandemics with such severe impacts are uncommon they are usually not expressly provided for in contracts. Events from the past month to date are a clear indication of a situation that is beyond control, and may lead to involuntary breach of contract by parties who fail to meet their contractual obligations. Parties that do not have Force Majeure clauses and are unable to meet their obligations can plead Frustration of Contract which defense does not require prior inclusion in their contracts.

Medical professionals around the world are working tirelessly to find a cure for the COVID-19 virus and are currently testing some combinations of medication. A fact is that we cannot forecast when things will be back to normal and the International trading markets restored. While policy focus by most affected governments has been to provide safety nets for their economies with measures such as food donations and grants to needy families, tax reductions and pay cuts for some officials, unfortunately businesses have been left to think fast and make tough decisions to remain afloat.

Time is of the essence for those who wish to rely on the Force Majeure and Frustration of contract defenses for their non-performance and a reminder that ignorance of the law is not a defense as a rule of thumb. Players of the International trade market and policy makers will all have to act in good faith for the sake of survival as we all anticipate the end of the pandemic, after-which a whole new world order shall begin.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Rokok Elektronik, Kesehatan, dan Kebebasan Individu

by Haikal Kurniawan

Rokok elektronik, atau yang akrab disebut vape, saat ini merupakan produk yang sedang mendunia, termasuk di tanah air. Di Indonesia sendiri, menurut laporan dari CNBC Indonesia, ada sekitar 1 juta pengguna vape pada tahun 2019 lalu (CNBC Indonesia, 2019).

Bisnis rokok elektronik di Indonesia juga mampu meraup pendapatan yang besar, hingga 200 miliar sampai 300 miliar setiap bulannya (Mix.co.id). Omset yang besar ini juga berdampak pada cukai yang tinggi, hingga 700 miliar rupiah per November 2019 (Waspada.co.id, 2019).

Banyaknya pengguna vape di Indonesia ini menimbulkan kontroversi. Tidak sedikit pihak yang menentang produk tersebut, dan meminta kepada pemerintah untuk segera melarang peredaran vape. Salah satu penentangan tersebut datang dari Komisi Nasional (Komnas) Pengendalian Tembakau.

Melalui manager komunikasinya, Nina Samidi, Komnas Pengendalian Tembakau menghimbau kepada pemerintah untuk menarik seluruh produk rokok elektronik yang beredar di pasar Indonesia. Selain itu, Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM) menyatakan bahwa vape merupakan produk yang berbahaya. (Media Indonesia, 2019).

Namun, apakah anggapan ini merupakan sesuatu yang tepat? Mari kita lihat faktanya terlebih dahulu.

Berdasarkan laporan dari organisasi Asosiasi Paru-Paru Amerika (American Lung Association), rokok konvensional, ketika dibakar, menghasilkan lebih dari 7.000 zat kimia. Dari 7.000 zat kimia tersebut, 69 diantaranya telah diidentifikasi sebagai penyebab kanker (American Lung Association, 2019).

Sementara, dua bahan yang paling umum yang digunakan oleh dalam bahan cair vape adalah propylene glycol (PG) dan vegetable glycerin (VG), yang digunakan untuk membuat uap dan perasa. Bahan-bahan ini merupakan sesuatu yang terbukti aman dan merupakan bahan yang umum digunakan di berbagai produk makanan dan minuman seperti soda, es krim, dan produk-produk berbahan dasar susu (Food and Drugs Administration, 2019).

Organisasi pemerhati kesehatan asal Britania Raya misalnya, Public Health England, pada tahun 2015 menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik 95% lebih aman dibandingkan dengan rokok tembakau konvensional (Public Health England, 2015).  Hal yang sama juga dinyatakan oleh Kementerian Kesehatan New Zealand dan Kanada.

Keduanya menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik jauh lebih aman daripada rokok konvensional, dan merupakan salah satu solusi terbaik untuk membantu perokok untuk berhenti merokok. Kementerian Kesehatan Kanada misalnya, menyatakan bahwa rokok elektronik jauh lebih aman daripada rokok tembakau konvensional, karena tidak melalui proses pembakaran yang mengeluarkan zat-zat berbahaya yang membuat kanker (Health Canada, 2018).

Lantas bagaimana dengan berbagai kasus kematian yang terjadi di berbagai tempat karena penggunaan vape. Bukankah hal tersebut merupakan bukti bahwa rokok elektronik merupakan sesuatu yang berbahaya?

Di Amerika Serikat misalnya, per Februari 2020, lembaga kesehatan Pemerintah Amerika, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mencatat setidaknya ada 2.800 kasus orang-orang yang dibawa ke rumah sakit karena penggunaan rokok elektronik (CDC, 2020). Adanya kasus tersebut juga merupakan penyebab utama Presiden Donald Trump mengeluarkan peraturan pelarangan produk vape yang memiliki rasa selain menthol dan original, pada bulan Januari 2020 lalu.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN