fbpx

Author: Maria Chaplia

The UAE ranked the most pandemic-resilient country

Today, the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group, released the updated 2022 Pandemic Resilience Index to overview global health system preparedness for COVID-19 and other viruses.

The Index examines 40 countries through the following factors: vaccination drive, booster programme launch, time lags that have put brakes on it, critical care bed capacity, and mass testing.

In 2021, the Consumer Choice Center published the Pandemic Resilience Index, with March 31, 2021 as the cut off date. The original results found that the UAE was the second most prepared country. The updated Index incorporates the new data between the end of March and late November, 2021, and additionally considers the booster programme.

“The UAE was the pioneer of the booster rollout. Countries such as New Zealand, Ukraine, Australia, Spain and Canada took 5 months longer to get it up and running. Compared to the initial results, the change in the ranking is largely due to the booster vaccine rollout delays. Israel, the most resilient country, according to the original Index, started giving out boosters 75 days later than the UAE,” said Maria Chaplia, Research Manager at the Consumer Choice Center and author of the Index.

“We also considered the relative change in testing, compared to the original index. Although Greece’s increase was highest, the UAE was among the top five countries to have increased their testing. Luxembourg and Sweden, for contrast, reduced their testing,” added Chaplia.

“We recognise that there are limitations to what this Index can achieve, as well as there might be a minor margin of error. However, it holds that vaccination and testing capacity remain a critical weapon against new strains of COVID. Most countries have learned the importance of testing, but the booster vaccination rollout experienced significant delays. The index should be seen as a reminder that there are countries that do it better — such as the UAE, Cyprus, and Bahrain — and they should be further explored as success stories,” concluded Chaplia.

Rational Standard

To Tackle Smoking, South Africa Should Embrace, Not Tax, Vaping

In December 2021, the National Treasury published a proposal to tax electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems in South Africa. The Treasury points to the increased consumption of these products among youth worldwide and their potential to undermine tobacco control efforts. Based on the Treasury’s calculations, the total excise duty would range from R 33.30 to R 346.00, dependent on volume and nicotine strength.

The proposal mirrors anti-vaping efforts spearheaded by the World Health Organisation and lacks understanding of harm reduction. The vaping tax would deprive South African smokers of the opportunity to quit, and drive current vapers back to combustible tobacco consumption.

A snap survey conducted by the Vaping Saved My Life (VSML) consumer group in South Africa interviewed 1480 vapers in the country, and the results are staggering. 26.6 per cent of vapers would go back to smoking, and another 26.2 per cent would get their e-liquids from informal sources.

By introducing the tax, the South African government will further extend the list of its unsuccessful anti-smoking policies. To curb smoking, the South African government has been using conventional tobacco control measures such as advertising restrictions, smoke-free areas, and taxes. In 2020, a temporary ban on the sales of cigarettes was introduced. These restrictions rest on the dangerous assumption that complete abstinence is possible and that it can be achieved by drastically reducing access to tobacco products.

Such an approach has not proven to be effective–neither in South Africa, nor anywhere else in the world. A 2021 Tax Justice SA (TJSA) report found that 2 out of 3 cigarettes sold in South Africa are illicit. In Ireland and the UK, where the price of cigarettes is also very high, the effects are the same. These unintended consequences of tobacco control are traceable across the board, and are predictable.

A more sensible solution would be to abandon the pursuit of complete abstinence and embrace harm reduction. As Dr Tyndall, Professor UBC School of Population & Public Health, explains, “starting with abstinence is like asking a new diabetic to quit sugar or a severe asthmatic to start running marathons or a depressed person to just be happy.”

Harm reduction is, first and foremost, humane as it recognises that addiction is complex, and it is almost impossible to quit at the whim of the government. For that reason, vaping was welcomed by smokers as a safer alternative. The diversity of vape flavours allows vapers to experiment and move away from smoking entirely. Flavoured vaping devices were found to be associated with an 230% increase in the odds of adult smoking cessation.

The youth vaping pandemic is often used as a means to undermine vaping. But, in fact, between 2019 and 2021, the use of electronic cigarettes among US teens dropped by more than 50 percent from 27.5% to 11.3%.

Commenting on the effects of the proposed vaping tax, Kurt Yeo, co-founder of the VSML, said: “VSML believes implementing any tax on safer alternatives will have devastating, yet predictable consequences to existing users of ENDs products and smokers wishing to quit.”

Michael Landl, director of the World Vaper Alliance, a global vapers’ movement, added that “the tax on vaping products will harm public health in South Africa. People who want to stay away from cigarettes or switch should not be abused as a source of funding for the state’s budget crisis.”

If the South African government really wants to help reduce the smoking rates, it should abstain from taxing vaping products, or keep the tax rate as low as possible. Smokers, especially those who smoke heavily, should be encouraged to switch to safer alternatives, and the ineffective and dangerous abstinence WHO-inspired ideology should be abandoned. Vaping saves lives, and let’s hope the South African government learns that lesson before it’s too late.

Originally published here

UAE tops global COVID-19 pandemic resilience rankings

The UAE has been ranked first in the latest COVID-19 global resilience rankings, thanks to its proactive mass testing, vaccination campaign and administration of booster doses to curb the spread of the virus. Followed by Cyprus, Bahrain and Israel, the Emirates was placed first in the Pandemic Resilience Index 2022. The ranking has been compiled by US-based advocacy group Consumer Choice Centre. The original index has collected data up until March last year during when the UAE was ranked second globally in terms of COVID-19 resilience. 

The group recently released the updated index which incorporated new data between the end of March and late November last year. As part of this data, the group took into consideration every country’s booster programme.

Speaking in the matter, Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Centre, affirmed that the UAE emerged pioneer in terms of its booster rollout. She added that countries like New Zealand, Ukraine, Australia, Spain and Canada took five months longer to implement necessary campaigns.

Read the full article here

UAE is most pandemic-resilient country in the world, say global reports

Two global surveys have placed UAE on top of the list when it comes to pandemic resilience.

The UAE once again has been placed at the top of the Bloomberg pandemic resilience ranking that measures the resilience and response of the world’s biggest 53 economies to the Covid- 19 pandemic.

In November 2021, the company noted that the UAE outperformed Europe in terms of containing the pandemic, naming it as the best place to be with the emergence of the Omicron variant. “Ruling out a return to full lockdown, the UAE economy is poised for strong economic growth this year helped by the rebound in oil prices,” read the most recent report.

Similarly, the UAE was also ranked first globally for its Covid-19 response and resilience, according to the Pandemic Resilience Index 2022.

Published by a United States-based advocacy group Consumer Choice Centre, the UAE was closely followed by Cyprus, Bahrain and Israel in the index.

Read the full article here

Die VAE führen die globale Covid-19-Resilienz-Rangliste an

Die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate haben in der neuesten Rangliste der globalen Resilienz von Covid-19 den ersten Platz belegt, gefolgt von Zypern, Bahrain und Israel, die ganz oben auf der Liste stehen.

Die Emirate belegten den ersten Platz in der Pandemie-Resilienz-Index 2022, die vom Consumer Choice Center, einer in den USA ansässigen Interessenvertretung, zusammengestellt wurde.

Massentests, Impfzulassung und Vertrieb von Booster Schüsse gehörten zu den Schlüsselfaktoren, die den VAE halfen, sich den Spitzenplatz zu sichern.

Read the full article here

Emiratos Arabes encabeza la clasificación mundial de residencia frente a Covid-19

Emiratos Árabes Unidos ocupó el primer lugar en las últimas clasificaciones de resiliencia global ante Covid-19, seguido de Chipre, Bahréin e Israel en lo alto de la lista.

EAU se situó en primer lugar en el Índice de Resiliencia Pandémica 2022, que fue realizado por Consumer Choice Center, un grupo de defensa con sede en Estados Unidos.

Las pruebas masivas, la aprobación y distribución de vacunas y de refuerzo fueron algunos de los factores clave que ayudaron a Emiratos a asegurar el primer puesto.

El índice original, que recopiló datos hasta marzo del año pasado, clasificó a Emiratos Árabes Unidos en el segundo lugar del mundo en lo que respecta a la resiliencia ante Covid-19.

Read the full article here

UAE ranked most pandemic-resilient country in the world

The emirates ranked first globally for its Covid-19 response and resilience, according to the Pandemic Resilience Index 2022

The UAE ranked first globally for its Covid-19 response and resilience, according to the Pandemic Resilience Index 2022 by US-based advocacy group Consumer Choice Centre. The emirates was followed by Cyprus, Bahrain and Israel.

The country’s mass testing initiative, vaccination drive, booster shot distribution programme, and critical care bed capacity were among the key factors considered.

“The UAE was the pioneer of the booster rollout. Countries such as New Zealand, Ukraine, Australia, Spain and Canada took 5 months longer to get it up and running,” said Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Centre.

Read the full article here

UAE tops global Covid-19 resilience rankings

The Emirates, Cyprus, Bahrain and Israel are the leading nations with fast and effective booster shot campaigns

The UAE has come first in the latest Covid-19 global resilience rankings, followed by Cyprus, Bahrain and Israel.

The Emirates was placed first in the Pandemic Resilience Index 2022, which was compiled by the Consumer Choice Centre, an advocacy group based in the US.

Mass testing, vaccination approval and distribution of booster shots were among the key factors that helped the UAE to secure the top spot.

The original index, which collated data up until March last year, ranked the UAE second in the world when it came to Covid-19 resilience.

However, the updated index incorporates new data between the end of March and late November last year, taking into consideration each country’s booster programme.

“The UAE was the pioneer of the booster rollout,” said Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Centre.

“Countries such as New Zealand, Ukraine, Australia, Spain and Canada took five months longer to get it up and running.

Read the full article here

Three priorities for the new European Parliament president

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will elect its new president. As the cases of Omicron spike around Europe, ensuring European solidarity in the face of the new strain will be one of the new president’s top challenges. The sudden death of David Sassoli, praised for keeping the parliament running during the crisis, leaves big shoes to fill. 

Aside from COVID-19, the new president will also need to ensure that the European Parliament takes a pro-consumer, pro-innovation evidence-based approach to several other pressing issues. In line with the goals set out in the European Green New Deal, these, among others, include sustainability of agriculture and energy cost-efficiency. Other significant areas of attention and consideration should be digital and the sharing economy.

Agriculture and sustainability

The EU Farm to Fork strategy is an ambitious attempt to make agriculture in the EU and globally–through trade policy—sustainable. However, cutting the use of pesticides and fertilisers by 50 per cent, as proposed, will not achieve these goals. Instead, the F2F will result in high consumer prices and reduced food production. The F2F will take crucial crop protection tools away from farmers, leaving them unprepared for the next virus. The black market in pesticides, which is already flourishing in the EU, will undoubtedly seize this opportunity. 

The EU shouldn’t restrict the farmers’ freedom to use the preferred crop protection tools to avoid these unintended consequences. Alternatively, the EU should consider enabling genetic modification in the EU.

To learn more about our stance on agriculture and sustainability, check out our policy paper Sustainable Agriculture, available here.

Nuclear 

The European Union remains unjustifiably cautious about nuclear energy. Nuclear is a low-carbon source of energy and an affordable source of energy. It would enable a decarbonised electricity grid. In addition, nuclear can support decarbonised heat and hydrogen production, which can be used as an energy source for hard-to-decarbonise sectors.

The latest IEA and OECD NEA report entitled ‘Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020’ confirms that the long-term operation of nuclear power plants remains the cheapest source of electricity. Furthermore, nuclear is much less vulnerable to price fluctuations, a key point at a time when energy prices are escalating.

To learn more about our stance on nuclear, check out CCC’s Open Letter on Climate Change by our Managing Director Fred Roeder, available here.

Digital

In January 2021, the European Commission presented the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). DMA aims to restrict the market behaviour of big tech giants by introducing a series of ex-ante regulations. However, the current approach lacks nuance and risks hurting the competition in the EU digital market and the EU’s global competitiveness. Instead of going after the success of the high tech companies, the European Union should instead focus on making it easier for smaller European enterprises to operate. One step in that direction would, for example, be to abandon the audiovisual directive, which prevents small and medium enterprises from scaling-up.

To learn more about our stance on the EU digital policies, check out our New Consumer Agenda 2020, available here.

The future resilience of the European Union will be determined by the policy choices made today. It is pivotal that the new president of the European Parliament becomes a champion of innovation, consumer choice, and evidence-based policymaking.

Written by Maria Chaplia and Luca Bertoletti

Нам ще тільки бракувало неефективного і дорогого податку

Податок на цукор не такий ефективний, як стверджує ініціатор.

Михайло Радуцький, голова парламентського комітету з питань здоров’я нації,ініціює введення в Україні податку на солодкі газовані напої. Радуцький посилається на досвід інших країн та рекомендації Всесвітньої Організації Охорони Здоров’я (далі – ВООЗ). Попри красиву риторику про ефективність цього податку, вона більше популістична, аніж підтверджена фактами. 

Ідея податку на цукор виникла в 1930-х роках, коли Данія почала оподатковувати безалкогольні напої та соки. Логіка була зрозуміла: щоб знизити попит на цукор, необхідно підвищувати його ціну. Вища ціна повинна спонукати компанії шукати дешеві замінники цукру, а споживачі двічі подумають, перш ніж купувати солодкі продукти з міркувань бюджету. Зібрані податки потім можуть бути використані для збільшення фінансування громадського здоров’я для лікування діабету або інших захворювань, спричинених споживанням цукру. Але як часто стається в публічній політиці, податок на цукор працює не так, як гадалось.

Податок на цукор доведеться платити українським споживачам, а зокрема сім’ям з низькими доходами. Згідно з дослідженням 2018 року, проведенимUS Tax Foundation, люди з низьким рівнем доходу, як правило, споживають більше солодких напоїв, ніж люди з високими доходами. У Мексиці, де діє податок на цукор, 62% надходжень, сплачуються сім’ями з низькими доходами.

Податок на цукор є дуже сумнівним способом вплинути на поведінку споживачів. Одне дослідження показало, що 62% британських споживачів (Британія ввела податок на цукор у 2018) жодним чином не змінили свою споживчу поведінку через податок на цукор. 

Крім того, податок на цукор має сильний ефект заміщення. Ефект заміщення полягає в тому, що споживачі вибирають дешеві альтернативи подібним продуктам з високою ціною. Якщо солодкі напої зростають у ціні, споживачі, як правило, переходять на інші продукти, які містять менше цукру, але насправді не є більш здоровими, наприклад алкоголь. Дослідження в Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, проведене з січня по грудень 2013 року, показало, що вища ціна на дієтичні напої/напої з низьким вмістом цукру призвела до збільшення продажів пива, сидру та вина. У Франції податок на цукор призвів до незначного зменшення споживання солодких газованих напоїв. Водночас продаж соків та інших безалкогольних напоїв значно виріс (на 7.2% i 15% відповідно). Такими ж були наслідки податку на цукор в Каталонії.

Надмірне споживання цукру є лише однією складовою нездорового способу життя, яке призводить до низки проблем зі здоров’ям. Так, наприклад, лише 30,8% українських міських підлітків (45,4% хлопчиків і 21,4% дівчат) ведуть активний спосіб життя (займаються фізичною активністю принаймні 60 хвилин щодня). Податком на цукор цю проблему не вирішиш – а створенням сприятливого середовища для заохочення актвиного способу життя, як зробила влада Амстердаму, можливо.

Пан Радуцький також стверджує, що більшість країн спрямовують гроші зібрані з податку на цукор на фінансування системи охорони здоров’я, але це не так. Минулого тижня британські активісти звинуватили британський уряд у використання цих грошей не за призначенням. Чи можемо ми тоді надіятись, що в Україні буде інакше?

Податок на цукор – це абсурдна патерналістична ідея. Треба заохочувати особисту відповідальність, а також відповідальність батьків за здорове виховання дітей, адже такий підхід дає більш довготривалі плоди, а не намагатись силою змінити поведінку. Якщо ми презюмуємо, що споживачі настільки інфантильні, що вони не знають, що їсти багато цукру то погано, то як ми тоді можемо думати, що вони вміють приймати правильні рішення як виборці?

Originally published here

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