BENGALURU — World number one Novak Djokovic has said participating in the US Open would be an impossible task due to the “extreme” COVID-19 protocols in place for the tournament at Flushing Meadows.
The US Open, scheduled to begin on Aug. 31, will be the first Grand Slam to be played after the COVID-19 pandemic suspended the season in March. The French Open was postponed to September while the Wimbledon championships was cancelled.
The suspension of the tennis season was last extended until the end of July but Djokovic, a three-time champion in New York, is not sure the tournament will go ahead.
“I had a telephone conversation with the leaders of world tennis. There were talks about the continuation of the season, mostly about the US Open due in late August, but it’s not known whether it will be held,” Djokovic told Serbia’s Prva TV.
“The rules that they told us that we would have to respect to be there, to play at all, they are extreme. We would not have access to Manhattan, we would have to sleep in hotels at the airport, to be tested twice or three times per week.
“Also, we could bring one person to the club which is really impossible. I mean, you need your coach, then a fitness trainer, then a physiotherapist.”
Djokovic suggested economic factors were behind the push to play the tournament.
“They want the tournament to go ahead at any cost for economic reasons, which I understand,” he said. “But the question is, how many players are willing to accept those terms.”
World number two Rafa Nadal had also said he would not travel to the United States in the present circumstances.
Nadal has also questioned whether tennis can restart with the pandemic still gripping large parts of the world and unless every player is able to compete.
“For me is very difficult to separate the status that the world is living from my real perspective on the world of tennis, no?” Nadal said last week.
“We need to be responsible, we need to be sure that the situation is safe enough, and then of course try to come back to our tour when the things are clear.”
The US leads the world in total cases, numbering over 1.9 million, while it has also recorded more than 109,000 deaths due to the novel coronavirus. — Reuters
WHEN FOOTBALL in the country would resume its activities is still to be determined but officials assured that they have started working towards it, eyeing a phased in return.
Gracing “The Crossover” podcast last week, Philippine Football Federation (PFF) President Mariano “Nonong” Araneta shared that they already got the ball rolling for a possible resumption of action, reaching out to various government agencies and seeking guidance on how the football community could resume activities under the “new normal” brought about by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
The PFF chief also said that they are taking cue from how leagues in Europe have dealt with such a situation and able to work to get back to resuming competition.
“[Games and Amusements Board] Chairman Baham Mitra contacted me and said we had to submit a set of protocols for him to submit to the IATF (Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases) for consideration,” said Mr. Araneta, who earned another term as PFF president in elections held last year.
“It (protocols) was submitted to the IATF and it is now being reviewed by a group of people. We submitted a 27-pager document and hopefully IATF will allow us, our clubs, to practice. This just for the first phase, which is to practice, the second phase is to play,” he added, underscoring that they utilized FIFA documents as well as those from the World Health Organization to come up with the proper protocols needed.
Mr. Araneta further conveyed that the football community in the country, including clubs playing in the Philippines Football League, is aching for the return of activities but also recognizes that it should be done with utmost safety in mind.
Nonetheless, the PFF is hoping that the football scene in the country amid COVID-19 would go the way of that in some parts of Europe where action has taken off anew.
“Of course, number one that we have to consider is the safety of the players. If it’s not safe for the players, might as well not start it. But it has been shown in other countries that have been worse-hit than the Philippines, they are starting their leagues, they are starting their practice sessions,” Mr. Araneta said, referring particularly to Germany’s Bundesliga, which has resumed competition, and the-about-to-restart LaLiga in Spain.
“And talking about football, we are in an open area, you are talking about 8,000 square meters area of land and only 22 players will play. So it is not a congested area for players and we will do the necessary tests even before the practice sessions, we will install disinfectants and all this safety equipment or whatever, which will allow the players to practice safely… Let us practice then let’s see from there,” he added.
NEW DATES FOR ASIAN QUALIFIERS
Meanwhile, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), in consultation with FIFA, announced the proposed match dates for the remaining matches of Round 2 in the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 and AFC Asian Cup China 2023 Asian Qualifiers, which were originally scheduled to take place in March and June 2020.
As per the document released by AFC last week, Match Days 7 and 8 are now scheduled to take place on Oct. 8 and 13, 2020 respectively, while Match Days 9 and 10 are due to kick off on Nov. 12 and 17, 2020.
The AFC is hopeful that with the new dates the Preliminary Joint Qualification Round 2 would be finished by November with the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Asian Qualifiers Final Round as well as the playoff matches for the AFC Asian Cup China 2023 Round 3 Qualifiers commencing by the March 2021 match dates in line with the FIFA International Calendar.
The proposed new dates for the qualifiers would allow the Philippine men’s national football team, or “Azkals,” to get back on the field.
The Azkals are currently in third spot in Group A of the joint qualifiers with seven points built on a 2-1-2 record.
Syria (5-0-0) is on top of Group A with 15 points, followed by China (2-1-1) with seven.
Maldives (2-0-3) is fourth with six points while Guam (0-0-5) has no points and is already eliminated in the race.
The top teams in the groupings in round two advance to the third round of the World Cup qualifiers and earn a spot in the Asian Cup.
The Philippines last faced Syria in the qualifiers in November where it lost, 1-0.
THREE YEARS removed from playing for the De La Salle Green Archers at the University Athletic Association of the Philippines, Ben Mbala has been touring different parts of the world as a professional basketball player.
Helped Taft-based La Salle to the UAAP men’s basketball title in 2016, Mr. Mbala, 24, has parlayed his wares in Mexico, Korea and France since last suiting up for the green-and-white in 2017.
It is a transition that he said he is still adjusting to but something he is determined to see work so as to establish a solid career for years to come.
“It’s tough. It’s different. You know being alone, being with myself, always having to fit in different places, different cultures, it is different,” said Cameroonian Mbala on the Tiebreaker Vods’ The Prospects Pod episode on Friday.
“It’s like really starting over and over. That’s one of the reasons why I kind of decided to sign for Pro A to get a three-year deal. Just want to have the stability of being somewhere for a while, making friends, getting acquainted with life and the people, which you can’t when you’re hopping from one place to another, it’s very tough,” he added.
Currently the two-time UAAP most valuable player (2016 and 2017) is signed with Limoges CSP at Pro A, the top-tier men’s professional basketball league in France.
Now with Pro A, Mr. Mbala said he feels he could grow as a player under it, saying “[Signing with] Pro A I feel like it was better for my growth as a player and you know have some strong business somewhere, unlike travelling, up and down that’s why I signed with a team who’s playing Euro Cup.”
But like most athletes right now, “Big Ben” is affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with outside physical activities limited.
Recently, however, restrictions have been eased in France so he is looking forward to getting back and conditioning himself and working on his game.
“Actually right now, we are allowed to go out. … I can go to the gym finally, I am not moving my legs bro, I need that back. I am doing a little something from home but it’s different from going to the gym, going for practice and stuff. But the situation is pretty okay now…,” Mr. Mbala said.
Prior to joining La Salle at the UAAP, Mr. Mbala spent some time as a foreign student-athlete with Southwestern University in Cebu City where he competed at the Cebu Schools Athletic Foundation Inc. (CESAFI).
Later on he was recruited to play for La Salle, where he established his star in the collegiate ranks. It was a time he had a lot of fond memories.
“I miss the time spent with the guys. During the moment, you take them for granted but now that I am pro, oh I miss the guys. I miss talking about everything, playing video games. I used to Facetime them like ‘what’s up how are you doing’ where we can play video games and hang out there,” he said.
Adding, “Right now, I am with myself, it’s different. Every pro player thinks about himself first, his contract, his family. But as college teammate, it’s more about being family, winning games together; bonding. It’s not always like that in the pros, I miss the guys. People being nice, talking to you, those are the small things I miss. When you look back, life was really easy, you ask what’s for breakfast, you go to class, simple stuff.”
In two years Mr. Mbala played for La Salle, he helped the team to back-to-back finals appearances, winning the title in 2016.
He would not play his final year of eligibility in UAAP Season 81 with the Green Archers, deciding instead to take hold of his career and take on new challenges. — Michael Angelo S. Murillo
THE JUGGERNAUT that is Amanda “The Lioness” Nunes continued with her dominance after successfully defending the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s women’s featherweight title against challenger Felicia “Feenom” Spencer at “UFC 250” on Sunday (Manila time) at the UFC APEX facility in Las Vegas.
Defending the featherweight title for the first time since winning it in December 2018, two-division champion Nunes, also the women’s bantamweight titleholder, hardly left a doubt on her standing as the best female fighter in the game by punishing Ms. Spencer throughout their headlining five-round battle.
Brazilian Nunes was dominant right from the beginning of the fight, exacting punishing strikes on Ms. Spencer on various locations and coming from different directions en route to the unanimous decision victory, 50-44, 50-44 and 50-45.
Ms. Spencer never really got it going and was nearly finished several times by Ms. Nunes, who with the victory won her 11th straight fight.
The Lioness credited her win to staying sharp and being on top of her game.
“I know what she (Spencer) is capable of and I studied her. I just stayed sharp throughout the fight,” Ms. Nunes (20-4) said post-fight.
With the loss, Ms. Spencer dropped to an 8-2 record.
Also victorious at UFC 250 was former UFC bantamweight champ Cody Garbrandt, who stopped a three-fight losing streak with a devastating knockout victory over Raphael Assuncao in the second round of their co-headlining fight.
UFC 250 was a continuation of UFC’s push for some normalcy amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It was its fifth live event sans a live audience since restarting competition in May. — Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Kevin Durant didn’t really have to issue a disclaimer. All along, he had been clear about his plans: He would be taking his time rehabbing from a ruptured right Achilles tendon, and doing so meant missing the entire 2019–20 season. He wanted to be extra careful in his recovery efforts, and not simply because he’s a relatively old 31. True, convalescence for any player is invariably more difficult with an advancing age. In his case, though, he is likewise informed by previous experience; his intrinsic competitiveness spurred him to hasten previous returns to the court off significant injuries, resulting in short-term gains at the expense of the future.
To be sure, unforeseen turns of events enabled the Nets to cling to the hope of Durant making an appearance before the end of the current season. The suspension of the campaign in March and projected restart next month gave rise to a timeline that had him more ready to trek back to the court. Not coincidentally, July was the original schedule of the Tokyo Olympics, cited by business partner Rich Kleiman in February as “definitely a possibility” for his return. The oxymoron, in turn, may have served as fuel for general manager Sean Marks to cite it as a “$110-million question,” albeit with the caveat that “he knows his body better than anybody.”
Marks is right, of course. Durant is the ultimate authority, and, over the weekend, he knew well enough to finally put all the talk to rest with a definitive no. “My season is over. I don’t plan on playing at all,” he told ESPN’s The Undefeated. “We decided last summer when it first happened that I was just going to wait until the following season. I had no plans of playing at all this season.” And, needless to say, the fact that he tested positive for the new coronavirus in March serves only to complicate matters, his subsequent clean bill of health notwithstanding.
Not that the Nets can be blamed for clinging to the prospect of Durant on the active roster. He’ll definitely improve their chances to go deep in the playoffs. That said, they remain a long shot for the Larry O’Brien Trophy; under the revised schedule, they have a mere eight games on tap before the start of the postseason, not enough to either improve their standing (seventh in the East) or get him back to prime physical shape. Meanwhile, pressure would be on him to deliver as their lone marquee name, not unlike that which led to his injury in Game Five of the 2019 Finals.
So, yes, Durant made the right choice early on. And, yes, he’s on the mark in sticking to it. The benefits may not be immediately apparent, but staying away is a longevity play that figures to reap lasting benefits. The need for him to explain his thought process in no way discounts the value of his decision. And, as a result, he and the Nets will be all the better once the 2020–21 campaign rolls around.
Anthony L. Cuaycong has been writing Courtside since BusinessWorld introduced a Sports section in 1994. He is a consultant on strategic planning, operations and Human Resources management, corporate communications, and business development.
On May 14, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) unveiled PH-Progreso or the proposed economic recovery program of the Rodrigo Duterte administration. Building on earlier stages of the government’s four-pillar socioeconomic strategy against COVID-19, PH-Progreso entails a mix of supply-side, demand-side, and tax reform measures that are aimed at supporting a rapid or “V-shaped” recovery for the Philippine economy following the widespread disruption posed by the pandemic in the country.
While the PH-Progreso plan remains a work-in-progress, we are encouraged by several of its features, such as the priorities of its proposed Bayanihan II expenditure program. The spending program will direct public investment towards the health and the food value-chain (including agricultural) sectors, and will recommence Build, Build, Build projects, subject to health standards, with the most promising job-creation impact. We also support the passage of a revised Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Act, even as we propose critical adjustments to the said bill.
Moving forward, we urge our policymakers to also incorporate the following considerations in the government’s recovery plan:
NEDA should publicly share or develop contingency plans for different recovery scenarios.
In presentations of PH-Progreso and other facets of the recovery plan, the economic managers have spoken about proactively determining a “V-shaped” recovery in the forthcoming months. Yet this remains the best-case scenario among a variety of trajectories, and “radical uncertainties” remain as to how the COVID-19 mutates in the following months, and when or whether a vaccine against it will be developed. Indeed, on May 13, the head of the World Health Organization’s health emergencies program cautioned that COVID-19 could become a permanent “endemic virus” and that the development of an effective vaccine against the disease remains “a moon shot” rather than a certainty.
Given the various pathways in which the pandemic and responses to it can unfold, it is only prudent for the government to develop plans for scenarios that are other than the best case. Among others, these contingency plans can identify how the Build, Build, Build program and other public investment programs can be calibrated, as well as which sectors will be “rescued” and supported by supply-side measures, depending on how long the COVID-19 pandemic lasts. Especially in a situation that the pandemic persists, large-scale infrastructure projects whose viability may be severely affected by physical distancing and travel restriction measures (e.g. airports, tourism infrastructure, commuter railways, mega-bridge projects) may have to be put on hold for a longer period, while sectors that are capable of producing medical supplies (e.g. Protective Physical Equipment, N95 masks, testing kits) may need additional support to streamline their supply chains and expand their operations.
Fiscal stimulus is necessary to boost the economy in this crisis, but fiscal discipline should be maintained.
Because of the “radical uncertainties” surrounding the pandemic, we really cannot be definite about a particular development track and predict specific expenditures in the fiscal stimulus package being currently deliberated in Congress. It is wasteful and inefficient to allocate tens or hundreds of billions of pesos for specific projects that Congress dictates, some of which are redundant, some of which are questionable, and some of which are driven by commercial interests.
We recognize the imperative of adequate financing for health, social protection, and recovery. We recognize that the country must undertake bold deficit spending in a time of crisis, especially given our country’s “financial strength.” Spend if we must. But this cannot be a license for unbounded, undisciplined spending.
The CREATE bill can be fine-tuned to enhance its impact on employment.
Though a full CREATE bill has yet to be submitted to Congress, what has been disclosed thus far by the Duterte administration’s economic managers indicates that among the measures that will be included in the said reform will be an immediate reduction in corporate income tax rates (CIT) from 30% to 25% starting July this year. This will be coupled by an extension of Net Operating Loss Carry-Over (NOLCO) deductions to five years for non-large firms, as well as rationalization of fiscal incentives with a longer transition period for existing investors and greater capacity of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board to tailor-fit incentives to different types of investors.
While we see the proposed CIT reduction as an immediate fiscal stimulus to firms during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also take note that the literature on corporate income tax cuts is ambivalent on their effect on business investment and employment. This is ultimately because firms can choose to spend the windfall from tax reduction in a variety of ways, including those that do not trickle down to the rest of society (e.g. distributing dividends, replacing workers with automated technologies). Similarly, we emphasize that much of the anticipated stimulus effect of CREATE will be highly sensitive to changes in the expected trajectory of the COVID-19. That is, should recovery in businesses’ sales and income take longer, then the stimulus effect of CREATE would likewise be dampened. This underscores the importance of retaining substantial demand-side measures through government investment and spending.
Hence, we urge making CREATE’s CIT cut conditional on job preservation or job creation by individual firms. By integrating such conditions, we can be better assured that businesses will use the additional income afforded by the reform in ways consonant with an inclusive economic recovery. In line with our past positions on CITIRA, we likewise emphasize the importance of integrating direct employment considerations into the criteria by which fiscal incentives will be awarded and monitored by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board.
CREATE should not be considered in a vacuum but as part of a broader package. In conjunction with job preservation and creation, we emphasize propping up MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises) to ensure that not only formally registered corporations but also those in the informal economy benefit from the fiscal stimulus.
PH-Progreso must be made more responsive to region-by-region differences.
The administration’s recovery plan has been formulated on a nationwide basis. While this is understandable given the early stages of the plan’s development, the pandemic has had vastly different impacts across regions and provinces. Indeed, recent papers by the University of the Philippines’ School of Economics have underscored the varying infection risk levels faced by different economic sectors, while statements of Ateneo de Manila University economists have emphasized the need for a spatial restructuring of the Philippine economy to overcome the country’s economic dependence on infection-prone Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao.
These spatial and sectoral differences on the impact of COVID-19, coupled with a need for a more even spread of economic activity and opportunities, make the planning of region-specific, if not province- and locality-specific recovery efforts, even more imperative. Just as academic institutions, businesses, and civil society organizations have been critical players in developing the national COVID-19 response, so too should such players be instrumental in designing regional efforts, whether with regional inter-agency task forces and regional development councils. To this end, region-level analysis of the impact of investments proposed in PH-Progreso must be undertaken to support the development of regional recovery plans that are sensitized to their existing endowments.
At present, the Balik Probinsya, Bagong Pag-Asa (BP) program, as established by Executive Order 114 on May 6, falls short of the localization needed for the government’s recovery program. The BP program prescribes a uniform approach towards regional development that, after the immediate relocation of beneficiaries to provinces and the extension of various types of social assistance, leans heavily on the proposed use of special economic zones (SEZ), infrastructure provision, fiscal incentives, and microenterprise promotion programs to generate local employment and livelihood opportunities. Thus far, there is little indication that this approach will leverage the local endowments of returnee destinations and will decisively address typical impediments to local business expansion and investment in more rural areas (e.g. governance issues, supply chain gaps, access to markets).
Quite indicative of the top-down nature of the program is the fact that no representatives among local government units or local government leagues are included in the Balik Probinsya Bagong Pag-asa Council, which is dominated by national agencies. If past experiences with such initiatives in the Philippines (e.g. SEZ development drives) are any indication, the BP program would likely not deliver upon its intended outcomes. Indeed, Rosario Manasan (2013) and the Philippine Human Development Network (2013) have emphasized that SEZs outside of Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and Calabarzon have typically underperformed for the reasons mentioned above.
Beyond recovery, we must build a more resilient, sustainable, and pandemic-proof agro-industry.
Government should beef up its support for sustainable investments in agriculture and agro-industry, particularly for R&D towards stronger agro-industry linkages in the rural areas. These will be investments in agro-industries and resource-based industries with potential for producing and health/medical supplies and for sustainable construction materials (e.g. abaca masks, and coconets for infrastructure projects). The agro-industry investments will promote domestic food supply, absorb displaced workers, and provide raw materials for key industry sectors.
Involved in the drafting of this paper are the following members of Action for Economic Reforms: Jerik Cruz, Victoria Viterbo Quimbo, Jenina Joy Chavez, Buenaventura Dargantes, Menandro Berana, Manuel Montes, Jessica Reyes-Cantos, Filomeno Sta. Ana III, Laurence Go, Nadine Agustin, and Arjay Mercado.
A curious mix of relief and trepidation (plus exasperation over the lack of transport) has attended the dialing down of Metro Manila’s lockdown from “modified enhanced” to now only a “general” community quarantine. While most people are obviously pleased with the chance to return to work, a feeling of unease still hovers over them owing to the health risks they must face in their simple desire to earn a living.
The reason is that what is reputedly the world’s longest COVID-19 lockdown (two and a half months) was imposed and lifted without any clear milestones having been set and passed. No transparent, publicly announced basis has been given as to how and why it is now deemed safe to go out. What seems to have occurred instead is that sufficient political pressure — from local officials and the business sector — was finally brought to bear for the administration to overcome its indecision and temporizing on health grounds enough to worry about the quarantine’s economic cost.
Lobbying is fine, except that the administration was always insisting that science and data would guide its decisions. So, exactly what data or science was cited in relation to relaxing the NCR quarantine? After enumerating some figures on cases, recoveries, and mortality, the president on May 28 said, “So you would see that the Philippines has ratio and proportion vis-à-vis with the population, we have a low rate of mortality here in this country.” Then came the definitive statement: “All in all, para sa akin, hindi naman masama ito.” (So, ayos na. Ganu’n lang.)
(“All in all, for me, this is not bad.” [So, it’s OK now. That is all.])
The president referred to an apparent low case and mortality rate, an implicit comparison with other countries. In fact, however, the picture is hazy at best. With 188 cases per million (Table 1), the country at first glance seems to fare better than others like Malaysia or even South Korea, the latter often cited as a model of prompt response and effective control. Confirmed cases in Malaysia are 36% more and in South Korea 21% more than in the Philippines on a population-adjusted basis (Table 1). It is telling, however, that the country fares worse than Indonesia — a close comparator in terms of population age-structure, ethnicity, climate, and economic level — in both prevalence and mortality per million people. Indeed, even as Asian countries have generally fared better than Europe or North and South America in terms of mortality, the Philippines is probably the worst performer in Southeast Asia.
SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND
A real objection to such comparisons is that not all countries have tested equally assiduously for cases, and it is likely the high case rates in Malaysia and South Korea are simply due to their far higher testing numbers. But this only makes the case worse for the Philippines, since its testing rate is also among the lowest — India does more and Indonesia even much more. This means case numbers here could actually be higher if testing had been more extensive. Hence the call for “mass” or “massive” testing. So, how much of the Philippine number is due to poor testing coverage and how much is due to the actual prevalence of the disease? No one really knows. Anyway, “para sa akin, hindi naman masama ito.”
The biggest confounding factor of the type of testing used thus far is that it focuses only on those who show symptoms of the disease (or those who, like frontline workers, are likely to contract the disease) and who present themselves for examination when ill. In other words, it draws from a statistically biased sample. It’s a lot like giving a test only to students with current failing status and using the exam to conclude how unintelligent the whole class is. In this sense it would tend to overstate the prevalence of the disease.
Its main effect however is to actually understate prevalence, since it fails to capture the infected-but-asymptomatic portion of the population, as well the many (mostly poor) who become ill but cannot have themselves tested for lack of the means to do so (Table 2). Other studies have shown poor people tend to forego medical attention even when ill to avoid trouble and expense. Returning to the exam analogy, even if only failing students take the exam, there may be poor students who never even bothered to show up. Which means underperformance may actually be under-estimated.
There are no firm global numbers for asymptomatics: estimates range from 80% of those infected (World Health Organization, WHO) to about one-fifth (a German study by Streeck et al.). Using the conservative German figure, the adjusted number of the infected including asymptomatics might be 232 rather than 186 per million, a number closer to Malaysia’s and Korea’s. The higher WHO figure could raise the number to a whopping 900-plus per million. The bottom line is that we are probably undercounting the number of COVID-19 cases. But by how much, we just don’t know.
It was precisely to gain a complete picture of the spread of the disease and of mortality that some of my UP School of Economics colleagues [Solon, Monsod et al. 2020] proposed testing based on random sampling, rather than “mass testing,” whatever that means. That would have meant drawing from every cell of Table 2, not just the shaded ones. But this is a call that has so far fallen on deaf ears, both from the generals running the inter-agency task force (who understandably cannot be expected to appreciate science), and from among the medical establishment (who are surprisingly impervious to statistical theory).
THE BODY (NON)COUNT
If the disease is more prevalent than measured, then it must at least mean mortality is actually lower, since we are at least counting dead bodies (the numerator) correctly, right? Actually, no. Chiara Zambrano of ABS-CBN News (yes, remember them?) wrote a vivid from-the-trenches story of how many deaths stemming from COVID-19-related symptoms or complications were being missed or misclassified since no tests were ever conducted — another reason random testing should have been adopted. In Quezon City from March 13 to April 17l, only 90 COVID-19-positive deaths were registered, but there were 308 COVID-19-related deaths (e.g., from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases) that never made it to the official COVID-19 death count. That is, the real COVID-19 death toll may have been more than four times that recorded.
A similar exercise was done for Jakarta, whose cemeteries counted an excess of 2,800 burials above the normal between March and April, while its COVID-19 death toll for those two months stood at only 381.
These are approximations of excess mortality, a catch-all measure of the impact of the pandemic called. It is the surge in deaths during the pandemic over and above historical or normal levels. Counts for the richer countries are more systematic. For certain periods, Italy’s excess mortality was 97% more than its official COVID-19 death toll; Britain’s was 30% more; New York’s 1%; and Istanbul’s 98% more than the official number. No similar official count or statistic exists nor to my knowledge has been attempted for the Philippines. What is only certain is that we are undercounting the COVID-19 death toll and “9 per million” is definitely an underestimate. But was the real number rising or falling before and after quarantine was lifted? By how much or how little? We do not know. At any rate, “para sa akin, hindi naman masama ito.”
BENDING IT LIKE BECKHAM (NOT)
To be fair, the “science-based” and “data-driven” measure typically cited by the health authorities is “doubling time,” or the time it takes for the number of confirmed cases or confirmed deaths to double — the longer the better. We already registered the caveats regarding these numbers. But even the trends are not straightforward.
While it is true the doubling time for the number of cases has improved to a bit more than 10 days the trend has been slow and uneven, with the daily number of cases reported still rising (Figure 1). The classic case of “bending the curve” is that of Italy, while India thus far has obviously failed. Philippine case numbers are less clear cut. Daily numbers, even with averaging, have been rising significantly since late May and are higher now than at any time during the quarantine. (We now report more new daily cases than Italy.) What does the spike from late-May mean? Is this simply capturing the hidden spread through asymptomatics that is just being revealed through wider testing? Are these just late results? Or is this really a “second wave” of infections, as Duque alleges? We simply do not know. But in any case, “para sa akin…”
Finally, there is measured mortality, though we already know this is an underestimate. “Bending the curve” in this sense really means reducing daily confirmed deaths before the total death toll becomes too large. Malaysia essentially tamped down the daily toll to one or less around the time the total reached 100 (Figure 2). South Korea controlled it when its death toll had reached 250. Italy stabilized deaths only after these had reached 30,000, and India’s death toll is obviously still uncontrolled. The Philippines is closing on 1,000 deaths total but has not yet succeeded, although to its credit that the daily numbers are in single digits. But is this simply an artifact of poor coverage? A genuine improvement? A temporary lull? It is difficult to say. But… you know what’s next.
None of the foregoing by any means constitutes an argument to prolong the lockdown. It is simply to ask why and when it was sound to relax it and what role, if any, science played in the decision. Only compare this with the way Merkel’s Germany decided on their opening up based on a regular and public monitoring of their effective viral reproduction number (the so-called Rt). Similarly, with proper science, things could have gone the other way: if random testing had revealed that the prevalence rate including asymptomatics was wider but only spreading slowly or locally; if the real mortality rate was in fact lower and definitely falling; if the actual reproduction number was known and seen to be dropping — then perhaps the quarantine could have been safely lifted even sooner, thus lessening the economic damage and human cost.
But instead the quarantine was relaxed based more or less on hope and a prayer — an expected result when determined lobbying meets shaky science — with the final decision being made by the gut feel of a strongman. Have we opened up too soon, or too late? How safe or dangerous is it to go out? Who knows? We only have the say-so of authorities whose advice to citizens echoes that of Paul to the Philippians (later to haunt Kierkegaard): “Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.”
Emmanuel S. de Dios is professor emeritus at the University of the Philippines.
COVID-19 might have killed “supply-side economics” that since its conception in the 1980s boom, created demand from the surfeit of supply, and plumped up consumer-driven economies.
Supply of goods and services is the main problem brought by the quarantines and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. The fear for one’s health and the recast psychology of consumers will, and has, affected the demand side of the changed economy of the world. There are now 6,861,716 confirmed cases worldwide of COVID-19 infection; 398,483 deaths; and 3,361,447 recoveries as of last Saturday, June 6, since the virus was first found in Wuhan, China in December 2019. The Philippines, number 39 of the most infected out of 215 countries, has 20,626 cases, 987 deaths, and 4,330 recoveries, all data from the worldometers.com coronavirus live update (June 6, 2020).
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the coronavirus pandemic had instigated a global economic downturn the likes of which the world has not experienced since the Great Depression. The US GDP dropped by 4.8% in the first quarter of 2020 — the sharpest contraction since the global financial crisis of 2007-2009 — bringing to an end the longest economic expansion in US history. The European Commission, in its forecast released on May 6, said that the GDP of European Union (EU) countries will contract by 7.5% in 2020. In the UK, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), warned on April 14 that the country’s economy could shrink by a record 35% by June 2020.
On April 15, the IMF warned economies in Asia would see no growth this year, for the first time in 60 years, with the service sector particularly under pressure, as reported in the same WEF website. According to official data, the GDP of China, the world’s second largest economy, fell 6.8% in January-March year-on-year, and will likely fall to 2.5% for 2020 vis-à-vis 2019, its slowest in almost 50 years.
The compounding effect of the fall of countries’ GDPs on each other and with China has reduced global demand and supply for products and services traded. In China alone, factory production plunged to its lowest and slowest in three decades in the first two months of the year. China makes up a third of manufacturing globally, and is the world’s largest exporter of goods.
The global travel and tourism industry, and the service sectors of economies were totally shut down in the first two critical months of the pandemic. Demand for oil has all but dried up as lockdowns across the world kept people in their homes. Coronavirus pulled the price of oil down to below $20, the lowest level seen in 18 years.
The stock exchanges, the FTSE, Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nikkei have all seen huge falls since the outbreak was felt and known in December. As of April 9, the S&P 500 stock index plunged more than 13% since the start of the year, while global oil prices plummeted more than 47% year-to-date.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) has warned that nearly half of the global workforce is at risk of losing their livelihoods. More than 36 million Americans have filed for unemployment pushing the April unemployment rate to a record 14.7%. The UK’s OBR said unemployment could rise by 2.1 million to 3.4 million by the end of June. In India, 122 million jobs (91 million small traders and laborers) were lost in the lockdown, according to data released on May 5 by the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy.
At the start of April in Spain, nearly 900,000 people have lost their jobs, bringing the official unemployment to 3.5 million, the highest since April 2017. Bloomberg reports that around half of jobs in Africa are at risk as a result of the outbreak, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. In the Philippines, the Department of Labor (DoLE) estimates the jobs lost to be 6 million to 10 million, as news reports last weekend already talked of 7.5 million actually jobless.
The US government passed an unprecedented $2 trillion stimulus package at the end of March, including direct payouts to millions of Americans. The European Central Bank (ECB) launched on March 18 a €750-billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program that is expected to last until the end of this year. The UK said it would pay up to 80% of the wages of employees across the country unable to work, as most businesses shut their doors to help fight the spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Denmark announced it would help private companies struggling to manage the fallout from the pandemic by covering 75% of employees’ salaries, if firms agreed not to cut staff. Poland put restrictions on access to state aid based on whether large firms pay taxes in the country. The EU implemented fiscal measures worth more than €3 trillion to help the economy.
It seems to show the helplessness of world economies against the world pandemic that the standard reaction of governments to intervene and cure the economic downturn would not work while the vaccine and cure for COVID-19 are not yet available. Maybe in one or two years, a fully tested and approved vaccine will be available to the world, epidemiologists say. The US and Eurozone’s economies could take until 2023 to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, according to a new report from consultancy McKinsey & Company.
So, will continued government intervention have to sustain, and ambitiously jump-start failing economies? Will tweaking monetary policy to put more opportunities in the market for consumers, investors, and businesses in the short term penalize the long term for inescapable repayments and corrections to front-ended availments of spending money? Will outright subsidies and incentives to businesses and cash dole-outs to the people have more than present relief?
A BusinessWorld report on the survival plan of businesses from the coronavirus effects notes: “In the Philippines, a number of blue-chip companies have cut capital spending and suspended expansion plans this year, some of them laying off workers to stay afloat. Some of these big companies were forced to shift their focus to their main businesses, ruling out investments in new ventures.”
The MVP Group is halving its 2020 capital expenditure to P80 billion as it cuts investments in new ventures such as hospitality and logistics. Ayala Land, Inc. told stockholders on April 22 that it was reducing spending to P70 billion from P110 billion, while International Container Terminal Services, Inc. told the stock exchange on April 24 it was trimming its capex to $100 million from $400 million.
Other examples are: Cebu Air parent JG Summit Holdings, Inc. which cut its capital spending this year to P58 billion from P82 billion; Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. has also cut its spending to P47 billion from P73 billion. While big companies make up less than 1% of Philippine enterprises, they provide about 3.33 million jobs, or more than a third of the country’s workforce, based on 2018 data.
And against this reality for businesses, must our political leaders and legislators insist on a P1.3-trillion COVID-19 economic stimulus package when even economic managers say the government can only afford P130 billion for spending programs? It seems that politicians intuitively know the PR benefits to them, especially in this fearsome time of the coronavirus pandemic, to be seen as generous with economic support. Acting Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Karl Chua said the amount legislators are proposing would require new revenue sources, which are “very limited” because multilateral lenders and the bond market, for example, are not readily available in this pandemic scenario. Moreover, the Constitution states that for special appropriations, funds have to be “actually available.” They must be certified by the Bureau of the Treasury and raised through a corresponding revenue source. Government debt has already jumped to a record P8.6 trillion in April, and legislators should not argue that the country’s debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio can allow us to borrow more now and worry later about repayment.
Thank God for our prudent government finance and economic managers, who know that COVID-19 has turned economics upside down, and forced a discernment towards a realistic strategy for very limited resources in a hazy timeline. Best to review tax cuts and incentives for businesses and other supply-side-based economic programs to generate revenues that were envisioned before COVID-19 wrecked the economic plans and strategies for the country and the world.
Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a Doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.
Despite the damaging effects of the Wuhan virus on public health, the economy and private enterprises, it does come with a silver lining.
The need to make public transport safer with proper distancing between passengers, coupled with the need to do away with cash transactions have caused the Department of Transportation (DOTr) to expedite its modernization programs.
In a memo sent to me by the DOTr, I was appraised on nine game-changing reforms that are being expedited for completion. I was also briefed on the status of road related infrastructure projects that are in the pipeline. Together, these developments should improve the state of public transportation and the flow of traffic in the metropolis.
The first reform implemented by the DOTr is the seating protocol inside jeeps, buses, and trains, taking into account the minimum one meter distance between passengers. This has already been done.
Second, bus and jeep routes have been rationalized for greater efficiency. Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) will no longer be allowed to ply secondary routes before running through main thoroughfares like EDSA, C5, or Roxas Boulevard. Beginning this month, secondary and main thoroughfares will be treated distinctly. Only accredited PUVs will be allowed to ply the main roads. The move will solve the problem of overlapping routes between PUVs whilst decongesting the main thoroughfares.
Third, buses will have dedicated lanes on EDSA and will take up the inner lanes, not the outer lanes as it did before. This was already implemented last week, albeit only for P2P buses. Not only will this prevent buses from indiscriminately loading/unloading and swerving across lanes, it will also allow them to achieve a faster turn-around time and ply the route more frequently during the day. It will compensate for the limited number of passengers allowed per bus.
Fourth, with buses now on the innermost lane, a 1.5 meter (width) bike lane will be carved out of EDSA to promote non-motorized transport (NMT). As NMT’s become more prevalent, the bike lanes will be expanded. The use of NMTs is the trend among progressive cities in the world.
Fifth, the DOTr will require buses and jeeps to have a GPS system so they can be tracked in real time. Through a phone app, the GPS systems will allow commuters to monitor the exact location of their ride and determine its exact time of arrival. On the part of government regulators, it will enable them to track driver behavior, deviations from the pre-approved route and number of trips made.
Sixth, in cooperation with PayMaya, PUV operators will be mandated to accept payments from digital wallets. The cashless system will negate the need for cash handling, thus preventing the risk of virus transmission.
Seventh, Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) are already in use in our toll roads. This will soon become the norm, rather than the exception, as we avoid physically handing cash to toll booth cashiers.
Eighth, within the year, all transactions with DOTr-related agencies will be done on-line. This includes processing of drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. The absence of over-the-counter transactions will bring greater convenience to our people whilst minimizing graft.
Ninth, the DOTr is appealing to government agencies and private enterprises to provide shuttle services instead of providing car plans. Shared rides are the wave of the future. It will decongest roads and reduce carbon emissions.
These reforms have been on the drawing board for many years but could not be implemented for one reason or another. The pandemic has given the DOTr the impetus to implement them at the soonest time possible.
As expected, grandstanding politicians like Congressman Carlos Zarate are standing in the way of progress. The party list congressman is accusing the DOTr of taking advantage of the pandemic to retire antiquated jeepneys. He is accusing the DOTr of being anti-poor and anti- jeepney drivers.
This statement reveals that the congressman is apparently willing to gamble with the health of the Filipino people. He is willing to allow antiquated jeeps to continue spewing noxious smoke that damages the environment. He is willing to deprive our people of a better public transport alternative. All these just to pander to his constituency. This is the height of irresponsibility and selfishness.
I consider the accusations of the Congressman to be typical of a traditional politician. The fact is, the DOTr has been in close coordination with cooperatives of jeepney operators. As a result of this coordination, the DOTr has arranged for a 30% fuel subsidy, loan deferment and franchise extension to help jeepney drivers and operators cope with the crisis. It has also offered jeepney operators soft loans to upgrade their fleets.
We should reject politicians who stand in the way of progress. Our commuters deserve better than the status quo.
The modernization program of the DOTr is forging ahead regardless. It coincides with 12 infrastructure projects that will come on-line in the next few years. Here is the latest update of projects according to Build3 Tsar, Vince Dizon.
The much awaited SLEx-SLEx connector road (Skyway stage 3) is now 76% complete and will be operational by December 2020
The Harbor Link Road, an elevated bypass connecting the North Harbor to NLEx, will also be operational by December 2020.
LRT-2 Extension was 71% as of last October and will be operational by December, 2020.
LRT1 Extension to Cavite was 31% complete as of last October and will be operational by December 2021.
MRT 3 Rehabilitation is 24% complete and will be finished by July 2021
MRT 7 is now 49% complete and will be operational by December 2021.
The BCG-Ortigas Center Road Link over the Pasig River is now 45% complete and will be operational by December 2020.
The Estrella-Pantaleon bridge connecting Rockwell to Mandaluyong City is 49% complete and will be operational by February 2021
The Binondo-Intramuros bridge is now 29% complete and will be operational by December 2021.
PNR Phase 1 (Tutuban to Malolos) was 7% complete as of last December and is expected to be operational by 2022.
The North-South Commuter Railway (Calamba to Clark) will be completed after the term of President Duterte.
The Metro Manila Subway will start tunneling operations in the 4th quarter. The DOTr was expected to receive the tunneling rig this summer but this was delayed by the pandemic. It should arrive by September, at the latest. Partial operability is seen after the term of President Duterte.
The combined effect of PUV modernization and the new infrastructure projects should change the game as far as traffic is concerned. These are significant steps towards realizing our dream of a transport system that is modern, technology-driven, and environmentally sustainable.
A virus, at heart, is information, a packet of data that benefits from being shared.
The information at stake is genetic: instructions to make more virus. Unlike a truly living organism, a virus cannot replicate on its own; it cannot move, grow, persist or perpetuate. It needs a host. The viral code breaks into a living cell, hijacks the genetic machinery and instructs it to produce new code — new virus.
President Donald Trump has characterized the response to the pandemic as a “medical war,” and described the virus behind it as, by turns, “genius,” a “hidden enemy” and “a monster.” It would be more accurate to say that we find ourselves at odds with a microscopic photocopy machine. Not even that: an assembly manual for a photocopier, model SARS-CoV-2.
For at least six months now, the virus has replicated among us. The toll has been devastating. Officially, more than 6 million people worldwide have been infected so far, and 370,000 have died. (The actual numbers are certainly higher.) The United States, which has seen the largest share of cases and casualties, recently surpassed 100,000 deaths, one-quarter the number of all Americans who died in World War II. Businesses are shuttered — in 10 weeks, some 40 million Americans have lost their jobs — and food banks are overrun. The virus has fueled widespread frustration and exposed our deepest faults: of color, class and privilege, between the deliverers and the delivered to.
Still, summer — summer! — has all but arrived. We step out to look, breathe, vent. The pause is illusory. Cases are falling in New York, the epicenter in the United States, but firmly rising in Wisconsin, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, North and South Carolina, and other states. China, where the pandemic originated, and South Korea saw recent resurgences. Health officials fear another major wave of infections in the fall, and a possible wave train beyond.
“We are really early in this disease,” Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told The New York Times recently. “If this were a baseball game, it would be the second inning.”
There may be trillions of species of virus in the world. They infect bacteria, mostly, but also abalone, bats, beans, beetles, blackberries, cassavas, cats, dogs, hermit crabs, mosquitoes, potatoes, pangolins, ticks and the Tasmanian devil. They give birds cancer and turn bananas black. Of the trillions, a few hundred thousand kinds of viruses are known, and fewer than 7,000 have names. Only about 250, including SARS-CoV-2, have the mechanics to infect us.
In our information age, we have grown familiar with computer viruses and with memes going viral; now here is the real thing to remind us what the metaphor means. A mere wisp of data has grounded more than half of the world’s commercial airplanes, sharply reduced global carbon emissions and doubled the stock price of Zoom. It has infiltrated our language — “social distancing,” “immunocompromised shoppers” — and our dreams. It has postponed sports, political conventions, and the premieres of the next Spider-Man, Black Widow, Wonder Woman and James Bond films. Because of the virus, the U.S. Supreme Court renders rulings by telephone, and wild boars roam the empty streets of Barcelona, Spain.
It also has prompted a collaborative response unlike any our species has seen. Teams of scientists, working across national boundaries, are racing to understand the virus’s weaknesses, develop treatments and vaccine candidates, and to accurately forecast its next moves. Medical workers are risking their lives to tend to the sick. Those of us at home do what we can: share instructions for how to make a surgical mask from a pillowcase; sing and cheer from windows and doorsteps; send condolences; offer hope.
“We’re mounting a reaction against the virus that is truly unprecedented,” said Dr. Melanie Ott, director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology in San Francisco.
So far the match is deadlocked. We gather, analyze, disseminate, probe: What is this thing? What must be done? When can life return to normal? And we hide while the latest iteration of an ancient biochemical cipher ticks on, advancing itself at our expense.
A FEARSOME ENVELOPE
Who knows when viruses first came about. Perhaps, as one theory holds, they began as free-living microbes that, through natural selection, were stripped down and became parasites. Maybe they began as genetic cogs within microbes, then gained the ability to venture out and invade other cells. Or maybe viruses came first, shuttling and replicating in the primordial protein soup, gaining shades of complexity — enzymes, outer membranes — that gave rise to cells and, eventually, us. They are sacks of code — double- or single-stranded, DNA or RNA — and sometimes called capsid-encoding organisms, or CEOs.
REUTERS
As viruses go, SARS-CoV-2 is big — its genome is more than twice the size of that of the average flu virus and about one-half larger than Ebola’s. But it is still tiny: 10,000 times smaller than a millimeter, barely one-thousandth the width of a human hair, smaller even than the wavelength of light from a germicidal lamp. If a person were the size of Earth, the virus would be the size of a person. Picture a human lung cell as a cramped office just big enough for a desk, a chair and a copy machine. SARS-CoV-2 is an oily envelope stuck to the door.
It was formally identified on Jan. 7 by scientists in China. For weeks beforehand, a mysterious respiratory ailment had been circulating in the city of Wuhan. Health officials were worried that it might be a reappearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, an alarming viral illness that emerged abruptly in 2002, infected more than 8,000 people and killed nearly 800 in the next several months, then was quarantined into oblivion.
The scientists had gathered fluid samples from three patients and, with nucleic-acid extractors and other tools, compared the genome of the pathogen with that of known ones. A transmission electron microscope revealed the culprit: spherical, with “quite distinctive spikes” reminiscent of a crown or the corona of the sun. It was a coronavirus, and a novel one.
In later colorized images, the virus resembles small garish orbs of lint or the papery eggs of certain spiders, adhering by the dozens to much larger cells. Recently a visual team, working closely with researchers, created “the most accurate model of the SARS-CoV-2 viral particle currently available”: a barbed, multicolored globe with the texture of fine moss, like something out of Dr. Seuss, or a sunken naval mine draped in algae and sponges.
Once upon a time, our pathogens were crudely named: Spanish flu, Asian flu, yellow fever, Black Death. Now we have H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), HIV — strings of letters as streamlined as the viruses themselves, codes for codes. The new coronavirus was temporarily named 2019-nCoV. On Feb. 11, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses officially renamed it SARS-CoV-2, to indicate that it was very closely related to the SARS virus, another coronavirus.
Before the emergence of the original SARS, the study of coronaviruses was a professional backwater. “There has been such a deluge of attention on we coronavirologists,” said Susan R. Weiss, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “It is quite in contrast to previously being mostly ignored.”
There are hundreds of kinds of coronaviruses. Two, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, can be deadly; four cause one-third of common colds. Many infect animals with which humans associate, including camels, cats, chickens and bats. All are RNA viruses. Our coronavirus, like the others, is a string of roughly 30,000 biochemical building blocks called nucleotides enclosed in a membrane of both protein and lipid.
“I’ve always been impressed by coronaviruses,” said Anthony Fehr, a virologist at the University of Kansas. “They are extremely complex in the way that they get around and start to take over a cell. They make more genes and more proteins than most other RNA viruses, which gives them more options to shut down the host cell.”
The core code of SARS-CoV-2 contains genes for as many as 29 proteins: the instructions to replicate the code. One protein, S, provides the spikes on the surface of the virus and unlocks the door to the target cell. The others, on entry, separate and attend to their tasks: turning off the cell’s alarm system; commandeering the copier to make new viral proteins; folding viral envelopes, and helping new viruses bubble out of the cell by the thousands.
“I usually picture it as an entity that comes into the cell and then it falls apart,” Ott of the Gladstone Institute said. “It has to fall apart to build some mini-factories in the cell to reproduce itself, and has to come together as an entity at the end to infect other cells.”
For medical researchers, these proteins are key to understanding why the virus is so successful, and how it might be neutralized. For instance, to break into a cell, the S protein binds to a receptor called angiotensin converting enzyme 2, or ACE2, like a hand on a doorknob. The S protein on this coronavirus is nearly identical in structure to the one in the first SARS — “SARS Classic” — but some data suggests that it binds to the target enzyme far more strongly. Some researchers think this may partly explain why the new virus infects humans so efficiently.
Every pathogen evolves along a path between impact and stealth. Too mild and the illness does not spread from person to person; too visible and the carrier, unwell and aware, stays home or is avoided — and the illness does not spread. “SARS infected 8,000 people, and was contained quickly, in part because it didn’t spread before symptoms appeared,” Weiss noted.
By comparison, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have achieved an admirable balance. “No aspect of the virus is extraordinary,” said Dr. Pardis Sabeti, a computational geneticist at the Broad Institute who helped sequence the Ebola virus in 2014. “It’s the combination of things that makes it extraordinary.”
SARS Classic settled quickly into human lung cells, causing a person to cough but also announcing its presence. In contrast, its successor tends to colonize first the nose and throat, sometimes causing few initial symptoms. Some cells there are thought to be rich in the surface enzyme ACE2 — the doorknob that SARS-CoV-2 turns so readily. The virus replicates quietly, and quietly spreads: One study found that a person carrying SARS-CoV-2 is most contagious two to three days before they are aware that they might be ill.
From there, the virus can move into the lungs. The delicate alveoli, which gather oxygen essential to the body, become inflamed and struggle to do their job. The texture of the lungs turns from airy froth to gummy marshmallow. The patient may develop pneumonia; some, drowning internally and desperate for oxygen, go into acute respiratory distress and require a ventilator.
The virus can settle in still further: damaging the muscular walls of the heart; attacking the lining of the blood vessels and generating clots; inducing strokes, seizures and inflammation of the brain; and damaging the kidneys. Often the greatest damage is inflicted not by the virus but by the body’s attempt to fight it off with a dangerous “cytokine storm” of immune system molecules.
The result is an illness with a perplexing array of faces. A dry cough and a low fever at the outset, sometimes. Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sometimes. Maybe you lose your sense of smell or taste. Maybe your toes become red and inflamed, as if you had frostbite. For some patients it feels like a heart attack, or it causes delusion or disorientation.
Often it feels like nothing at all; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35% of people who contract the virus experience few to no symptoms, although they can continue to spread it. “The virus acts like no pathogen humanity has ever seen,” the journal Science notes.
More to the point, the pathogen has gone largely unseen. “It has these perfect properties to spread throughout the entire human population,” Fehr said. “If we didn’t know what a virus was” — and didn’t take proper precautions — “this virus would infect virtually every human on the planet. It still might do that.”
DATA VS. DATA
On Jan. 10, the Wuhan health commission in China reported that in the previous weeks, 41 people had contracted the illness caused by the coronavirus, and that one had died — the first known casualty at the time.
That same day, Chinese scientists publicly released the complete genome of the virus. The blueprint, which could be simulated and synthesized in the lab, was almost as good as a physical sample, and easier for researchers worldwide to obtain. Analyses appeared in journals and on preprint servers like bioRxiv, on sites like nextstrain.org and virological.org: clues to the virus’s origin, its errors and its weaknesses. From then on, the new coronavirus began to replicate not only physically in human cells but also figuratively, and likely to its own detriment, in the human mind.
Ott entered medicine in the 1980s, when AIDS was still new and terrifyingly unknown. “Compare that time to today, there are a lot of similarities,” she said. “A new virus, a rush to understand, a rush to a cure or a vaccine. What’s fundamentally different now is that we have generated this community of collaboration and data-sharing. It’s really mind-blowing.”
Three hours after the virus’s code was published, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, based in San Diego, began work on a vaccine against it — one of more than 100 such efforts now underway around the world. Sabeti’s lab quickly got to work developing diagnostic tests. Ott and Weiss soon managed to obtain samples of live virus, which allowed them to “actually look at what’s going on” when it infects cells in the lab, Ott said.
“The cell is mounting a profound battle to prevent the virus from entering or, on entering, to alarm everyone around it so it can’t spread,” she said. “The virus’s intent is to overcome this initial surge of defense, to set up shop long enough to reproduce itself and to spread.”
With so many proteins in its tool kit, the virus has many ways to counter our immune system; these also offer targets for potential vaccines and drugs. Researchers are working every angle. Most vaccine efforts are focused on disrupting the spike proteins, which allow entry into the cell. The drug remdesivir targets the virus’s replication machinery. Fehr studies how the virus disables our immune system.
“I use the analogy of ‘Star Wars,’” he said. “The virus is the Dark Side. We have a cellular defense system of hundreds of antiviral proteins” — Jedi knights — “to defend ourselves. Our lab is studying one specific Jedi that uses one particular weapon, and how the virus fights back.”
These battles, fought on the field of biochemistry, strain the alphabet to describe. The Jedi in this analogy are particular enzymes (poly-ADP-ribose polymerases, or PARPS, if you must know) that are produced in infected cells and wield a molecule that attaches to certain invading proteins — “We don’t know what these are yet,” Fehr said — and disrupts them. In response, the virus has an enzyme of its own that sweeps away our Jedi like dust from a sandcrawler.
Carolyn Machamer, a cell biologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, is studying the later stages of the process, to learn how the virus manages to navigate and assemble itself within a host cell and depart it. Among the research topics listed on her university webpage are coronaviruses but also “intracellular protein trafficking” and “exocytosis of large cargo.”
On entering the cell, components of the virus set up shop in a subregion, or organelle, called the Golgi complex, which resembles a stack of pancakes and serves as the cell’s mail-sorting center. Machamer has been working to understand how the virus commandeers the unit to route all the newly replicated viral bits, scattered throughout the cell, for final assembly.
The subject was “poorly studied,” she conceded. Most drug research has focused on the early stages, like blocking infection at the very outset or disrupting replication inside the cell. “Like I said, it hasn’t gotten a whole lot of attention,” she said. “But I think it will now, because I think we have some really interesting targets that could possibly yield new types of drugs.”
The line of inquiry dates back to her postdoctoral days. She was studying the Golgi complex — “The organelle is really bizarre” — even then. “It’s following what you’re interested in; that’s what basic science is about. It’s, like, you don’t actually set out to cure the world or anything, but you follow your nose.”
For all the attention the virus has received, it is still new to science and rich in unknowns. “I’m still very focused on the question: How does the virus get into the body?” Ott said. “Which cells does it infect in the upper airway? How does it get into the lower airway, and from there to other organs? It’s absolutely not clear what the path is, or what the vulnerable path types are.”
And most pressing: Why are so many of us asymptomatic? “How does the virus manage to do this without leaving traces in some people, but in others there’s a giant reaction?” she said. “That’s the biggest question currently, and the most urgent.”
MISTAKES ARE MADE
Even a photocopier is imperfect, and SARS-CoV-2 is no exception. When the virus commandeers a host cell to copy itself, invariably mistakes are made, an incorrect nucleotide swapped for the right one, for instance. In theory, such mutations, or an accumulation of them, could make a virus more infectious or deadly, or less so, but in a vast majority of cases, they do not affect a virus’s performance.
What’s important to note is that the process is random and incessant. Humans describe the contest between host and virus as a war, but the virus is not at war. Our enemy has no agency; it does not develop “strategies” for escaping our medicines or the activity of our immune systems.
Unlike some viruses, SARS-CoV-2 has a proofreading protein — NSP14 — that clips out mistakes. Even still, errors slip through. The virus acquires two mutations a month, on average, which is less than half the error rate of the flu — and increases the possibility that a vaccine or drug treatment, once developed, will not be quickly outdated. “So far it’s been relatively faithful,” Ott said. “That’s good for us.”
By March, at least 1,388 variants of the coronavirus had been detected around the world, all functionally identical as far as scientists could tell. Arrayed as an ancestral tree, these lineages reveal where and when the virus spread. For instance, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in New York was announced on March 1, but an analysis of samples revealed that the virus had begun to circulate in the region weeks earlier. Unlike early cases on the West Coast, which were seeded by people arriving from China, these cases were seeded from Europe, and in turn seeded cases throughout much of the country.
The roots can be traced back still further. The first known patient was hospitalized in Wuhan on Dec. 16, 2019, and first felt ill on Dec. 1; the first infection would have occurred still earlier. Sometime before that the virus, or its progenitor, was in a bat — the genome is 96% similar to a bat virus. How long ago it made that jump, and acquired the mutations necessary to do so, is unclear. In any case, and contrary to certain conspiracy theories, SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered in a laboratory.
“Those scenarios are so unlikely as to be impossible,” said Dr. Robert Garry, a microbiologist at Tulane University and an expert on emerging diseases. In March, a team of researchers including Garry published a paper in Nature Medicine comparing the genome and protein structures of the novel virus with those of other coronaviruses. The novel distinctions were “most likely the result of natural selection,” they concluded. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
In our species, the virus has found prime habitat. It seems to do most of its replicating in the upper respiratory tract, Garry noted: “That makes it easier to spread with your voice, so there may be more opportunities for it to spread casually, and perhaps earlier in the course of the disease.”
And there we have it: an organism, or whatever the right word is, ideally adapted to human conversation, the louder the better. Our communication is its transmission. Consider where so many outbreaks have begun: funerals, parties, call centers, sports arenas, meatpacking plants, dorm rooms, cruise ships, prisons. In February, a medical conference in Boston led to more than 70 cases in two weeks. In Arkansas, several cases were linked to “a high school swim party that I’m sure everybody thought was harmless,” Gov. Asa Hutchinson said. After a choir rehearsal in Mount Vernon, Washington, 28 members of the choir fell ill. Not even song is safe anymore.
The virus has no trouble finding us. But we are still struggling to find it; a recent model by epidemiologists at Columbia University estimated that for every documented infection in the United States, 12 more go undetected. Who has it, or had it, and who does not? A firm grasp of the virus’s whereabouts — using diagnostic tests, antibody tests and contact tracing — is essential to our bid to return to normal life. But humanity’s immune response has been uneven.
In late May, in an open letter, a group of former White House science advisers warned that, to prepare for an anticipated resurgence of the pandemic later this year, the federal government needed to begin preparing immediately to avoid the “extraordinary shortage of supplies” that occurred this spring.
“The virus is here, it’s everywhere,” Dr. Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, told the U.S. Senate in mid-May. “We need to unleash the voices of the scientists in our public health system in the United States, so they can be heard.” Right now, he added, “there is no master coordinated plan on how to respond to this outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 virus has no plan. It doesn’t need one; absent a vaccine, the virus is here to stay.
“This is a pretty efficient pathogen,” Garry said. “It’s very good at what it does.”
THE NEXT WAVE
“The virus spreads because of an intrinsic, latent quality in the culture,” media theorist Douglas Rushkoff, who two decades ago coined the phrase “going viral,” wrote recently. “Both biological and media viruses say less about themselves than they do about their hosts.”
To know SARS-CoV-2 is to know ourselves in reflection. It is mechanical, unreflecting, consistently on-message — the purest near-living expression of data management to be found on Earth. It is, and does, and is more. There is no “I” in a virus.
We are exactly its opposite: human, and everything that implies. Masters of information, suckers for misinformation; slaves to emotion, ego and wishful thinking. But also: inquiring, willful, optimistic. In our best moments, we strive to learn, and to advance more than our individual selves.
“The best thing to come out of this pandemic is that everyone has become a virologist in some way,” Ott said. She has a regular trivia night with her family in Germany, over Zoom. Lately, the topic has centered on viruses, and she has been impressed by how much they know. “There’s so much more knowledge around,” she said. “A lot of wrong info around, also. But people have become so literate, because we all want it to go away.”
Sabeti agreed, up to a point. She expressed a deep curiosity about viruses — they are “formidable opponents to understand” — but said that, this time around, she found herself less interested in the purely intellectual pursuit.
“For me right now, the place that I’m in, I really just most want to stop this virus,” she said. “It’s so frustrating and disappointing, to say the least, to be in this position in which we have stopped the world, in which we’ve created social distancing, in which we have created mass amounts of human devastation and collateral damage because we just weren’t prepared.
“I don’t care to understand it,” she said. “For me, it’s … I get up in the morning and my motivation is just: Stop this thing, and figure out how to never have this happen again.”
Philippines AirAsia, Inc. on Friday said it had reached a tough decision to cut 12% of its Filipino staff while senior employees had offered a pay cut to help the low-cost carrier stay afloat.
“Despite all our efforts to curb the effects of the pandemic, AirAsia has made the difficult decision of reducing the company’s workforce, but has done everything to keep the number of affected employees to a minimum, totalling 12% of all Filipino Allstars,” it said in a statement.
It said the aviation industry had been hit hard by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, and that the budget airline was no exception.
“In our effort to further manage and contain costs, both the management and senior employees of AirAsia Group have volunteered a salary sacrifice, ranging from 100% at the very top to 15%,” it added.
AirAsia said the move would help ensure that the company could ride out a prolonged period of “extremely low travel demand” while minimizing the impact on its employees, especially those in junior posts.
On Friday, Philippines AirAsia cancelled its Cebu flights as it kicked off the first day of its domestic flight resumption.
“We had hoped to also mount our flights from Manila to Cebu and Clark to Cebu, but sad to say, there were new developments that came in last night, so we had to cancel these flights,” said David F. de Castro, AirAsia Philippines communications head, in the Laging Handa virtual briefing, Friday.
Mr. de Castro said the cancelation was decided in coordination with the Inter-Agency Task Force and aviation authorities.
The Department of Health coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tracker showed that as of June 4, 138 new cases were reported in Central Visayas, bringing its total confirmed cases to 2,957.
Despite the cancellation, the airline on Friday was still able to resume flights on its domestic routes, beginning with a flight from Manila to Cagayan de Oro.
“Hopefully soon, in the coming days, papaliparin na rin papuntang (we’ll be able to fly to) Cebu, Davao, Puerto Princesa,” he said.
He added that AirAsia maintains its plans to eventually open international flights in July.
“For the international flight, we expect na mag-re-resume tayo (that we’ll resume) by July,” he said.
“Buhay na muli ang ating aviation industry, slowly but surely dadami ang ating flights.” (The aviation industry is back, slowly but surely there will be more flights)
The industry had been allowed to operate again at limited capacities, along with other modes of public transportation, upon the easing of the Luzon-wide lockdown on June 1.
The entire Luzon had been placed on a lockdown since mid-March, suspending work, classes, and public transportation. — Arjay L. Balinbinand Charmaine A. Tadalan
The listed operator of flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) reported a net loss of P9.38 billion in the first quarter, more than 10 times higher than the previous year’s losses as as travel restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic “severely” hit its operations.
In the same quarter last year, its net loss attributable to equity holders of the parent company was at P838.17 million.
In a regulatory filing, PAL Holdings, Inc. placed revenues in the first quarter at P32.07 billion, 18.3% lower than the P39.24 billion posted a year ago.
Broken down, passenger revenues dropped 21.4% to P27.01 billion, cargo revenues decreased 14.1% to P1.9 billion, while ancillary revenues grew 18.4% to P3.16 billion as well as other sources of revenues, which surged 137.6% to P3.43 million.
PAL attributed the drop in passenger revenues to flight cancellations in March 2020 prompted by the pandemic.
PAL’s total expenses increased 5.2% to P38.63 billion from last year’s P36.71 billion. The company said the amount was “mainly due to the increase in flying operations expenses particularly fuel expenses as a result of hedging losses.”
“This however was offset by the decrease in other group’s operating expenses due to reduced flight operations during the quarter,” it added.
PAL’s total other charges went down by almost 10% to P2.73 billion from P3.03 billion.
The company said its performance in the first quarter “was severely affected by the economic condition of the country.”
“Nevertheless, the group is committed to keep the flag carrier continuously flying in the safest condition even in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic,” it added.
PAL said further that it will continue to assess possibilities available to mitigate the increasing risks it is currently facing.
On Friday, shares in PAL went up 2.54% to close at P7.26 apiece. — Arjay L. Balinbin