THE Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) Corp. has won approval to seek a P43-billion loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), saying that despite “setbacks” encountered during quarantine, it does not expect to default on any of its obligations.
“This loan will be needed because, while PSALM anticipates revenues coming from privatization proceeds, power sales, delinquent and overdue accounts collections, and UC (universal charge) Stranded Debts proceeds, these revenues will not be sufficient to cover all the maturing obligations and operating expenses for the rest of 2020,” it said in a statement issued Wednesday.
PSALM said the Department of Finance has approved its request to seek P43 billion from the DBP, the first tranche of which it can access in June, to further settle the financial obligations it assumed from the National Power Corp.
PSALM, which is tasked to privatize the government’s power assets, said it managed to reduce its overall debt to P404.28 billion this month from P422.01 billion in January.
“PSALM has been paying its maturing debts and IPP (independent power producer) obligations, including interest and other charges, despite the ECQ (enhanced community quarantine) and the deferment of revenue collections from power bills, certain IPPA (independent power producer administrator) payments and the Universal Charge,” PSALM President and Chief Executive Officer Irene Joy B. Garcia said.
“There are certainly serious financial setbacks caused by COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) and the ECQ (enhanced community quarantine), but PSALM will not default on any of its maturing obligations,” she added.
In April, PSALM remitted P46 million to local government units hosting renewable power plants. — Adam J. Ang
FOREIGN nationals working in Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) applying for a work permit will be required to submit proof that their company is allowed to operate by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR).
In its Labor Advisory No. 19 dated May 20, the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) said this will be among the requirements for alien POGO workers seeking an employment permit during the modified enhanced community quarantine (MECQ) and general community quarantine (GCQ).
“In addition to the documentary requirements for the issuance of Alien Employment Permits (AEPs), the applicant shall also submit copy of recent PAGCOR Authorization to Operate, as proof that the POGO establishment is authorized to resume operations,” according to the Advisory.
Earlier this month, PAGCOR announced it will allow POGOs to operate at partial capacity during the GCQ. The agency said the sector’s operations fall under the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) category, which enjoyed some quarantine exemptions in MECQ areas.
DoLE said its Regional Offices may issue their own internal guidelines on accepting AEP applications and the release of AEP cards.
“For the issuance and release of AEP cards, use of courier services to deliver the AEP cards is highly encouraged at the expense of the applicants or their employers (in order to observe) the social distancing requirement, DoLE said. — Gillian M. Cortez
Before COVID-19, the IMF, the World Bank, and the ADB were one in forecasting that this year, the Philippines’ real GDP growth would be one of the highest among the ASEAN 6. This prediction did not come to pass. The viral pandemic notwithstanding, the IMF must be in a deep quandary over why we did not perform as well as everyone expected in the first quarter of 2020.
While Indonesia and Vietnam expanded by 3% and 3.8%, respectively, Philippine output declined by 0.2 percent. Malaysia’s GDP increased by 0.7 percent. Singapore and Thailand shrank by 2.2% and 1.8%, respectively.
The dip in Philippine GDP is a major let-down. The country has scored uninterrupted economic growth for the last 20 years. We even successfully weathered the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2009. We have been tenacious in building institutions with nearly three decades of strategic policy and structural reforms. We have managed to keep substantial fiscal and monetary space.
The disappointing first quarter economic report for the Philippines could not have been due to usual economic transmission channels. All the ASEAN 6 are dependent on an open trading system, tourism, and investment. Both Thailand’s and Vietnam’s exports declined by over 5% Singapore’s precision engineering and electronics industries also suffered due to weak global demand. World Bank documents that, among the six, the Philippines’ dependence on exports is in fact one of the lowest. Except for Indonesia and Malaysia, the recent collapse of global oil prices should have been a favorable factor for other countries. But all six experienced drops in domestic demand as a result of lockdowns. Home bias and flight to quality motivated capital outflows.
Neither could the decline in growth be attributed to lack of monetary and fiscal support. Since 2019, and more so during this pandemic, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has been easing policy rates and flooding the system with additional liquidity. As a result, domestic credit expanded quickest at more than 10% during the quarter. Public finance compared well with the rest of the ASEAN 6, with both our revenue and expenditure to GDP ratios faring among the highest in the region.
Moreover, market sentiment has generally been favorable. We attained successive credit upgrades culminating in triple B+, a notch below A-. Independent research think tanks on governance, corruption, transparency and other metrics of economic and political performance have given good reports. Six years ago, we were rated the most resilient emerging market by the Washington-based Center for Global Development. This year, the Sydney-based CEO magazine reported the Philippines as seventh best country for investors in 2020 behind Singapore, the UK, Poland, Indonesia, India, and Australia.
So why did the Philippines falter in the first quarter 2020?
The biggest component of output, private consumption at nearly 70%, grew by only 0.2%. This is a huge slowdown from the fourth quarter 2019’s 5.7%. Public consumption also expanded but by a more modest pace.
Exports of goods and services dropped and imports also showed a big contraction. These are symptomatic of weak economic activity. The corporates did badly with fixed investments declining by 4.3%.
Pro-cyclical market watchers and commentators now expect our second quarter performance to be infinitely worse given the viral scourge.
We recall that in March, in a New York Times article, Nobel laureate Paul Romer asked if the US economy, “will … die from the coronavirus?”
Likewise, after more than two months of lockdown and inactivity, will the Philippine economy take a fatal hit from the virus?
On the US economy, Romer believes that if the health and economic crises are addressed separately, it will. He said that if this approach is taken, such would be “contradictory” and would result in “catastrophic long-term failure.” Romer emphasized that saving lives IS saving jobs and business. Saving jobs and business IS saving lives. He therefore recommends, “a targeted approach that limits the spread of the virus but still lets most people go back to work and resume their daily activities.”
PHILSTAR/MICHAEL VARCAS
In making these recommendations, a scientific breakthrough or a miracle vaccine is not part of the equation. Rather, Romer’s proposed strategy is very linear: he pushes for more and wider testing. Cost would eventually decrease as technological advances make testing more affordable. As an example, Romer cited a Silicon Valley company called Cepheid which aims to produce tests that provide results in 45 minutes.
To eliminate false findings, Romer proposes periodic testing for infection as well as testing for immunity. Uninfected individuals will have to don PPEs while those who have developed immunity can afford to go without. PPEs should be distributed to frontliners like health officers, pharmacists, police officers, fire fighters, public utilities personnel and food preparation staff.
Romer argued that the idea that one day one could restart the economy without massive testing to check if the outbreak is under control is just “magical thinking.”
This is both the brilliance and the weakness of Romer’s proposal. The strategy may not work well in emerging markets like the Philippines where the public health system remains weak, congestion is an urban blight, and where compliance with protocols is almost impossible to enforce.
Good testing is critical as it will establish some basis for lifting physical lockdowns. Massive testing reduces the fear that one will get sick should he go to work or shop. It’s all about building confidence. Confidence is what builds investment, consumption and planning for the future. Confidence is what will resume business activities.
While extending loan guarantees and direct transfers can prevent bankruptcies and debt defaults, these cannot restore foregone output and jobs lost because of months of lockdown and inactivity.
In the Philippines, we endured the two-month ECQ because there was just too much uncertainty about the virus and its impact. But to this day, our health authorities have not provided us with greater clarity on what we are faced with. In fact, Secretary Duque has announced that we are currently experiencing “the second wave of infections” — much to the public’s bewilderment as we clearly have not even flattened the curve on the first.
This lack of clarity finds us in extended mutations of the ECQ culminating with MMECQ, “Matira Matibay Enhanced Community Quarantine.” Social isolation is being prolonged.
We are already losing trillions of pesos from the lockdown. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to allocate a few hundred billion pesos more for the conduct of more massive testing, to strengthen contact tracing, improve quarantine facilities and mitigation so we could neutralize the pathogen, flatten the curve, and create more confidence in the business climate? In doing so, there could be gradual normalization of business, school and office activities. Wage support and other forms of social protection also make sense in this time of pandemic. However, considering a possible bailout of big corporates may be outside the capacity of the public sector. Big corporates have open credit lines from the banks which some of them also partly own.
The Fund is familiar with the narratives of at least 100 countries that have sought its help in battling the coronavirus that has eradicated key sources of revenues such as tourism and travel. Therefore, any further downturn in Philippine economic performance should not confound it further.
The challenge is to do what we should have done at the beginning, and in a bigger way. This is to intensify massive and targeted testing, contact tracing, and treatment. Since we have missed out on the possibility of lifting restrictions earlier, this is the best that can be done now. In doing so, we should be guided by Paul Meehl’s famous finding that experts’ intuition is inferior even to simple algorithms.
It is true that choosing between salvaging the economy and risking countless deaths is simply a Trumpian choice. But the Philippines can pursue both, even if belatedly. It would be wrong to passively wait for a flatter curve and hope for the best. Tests, not bureaucratic intuition, are needed for economic revival.
Diwa C. Guinigundo is the former Deputy Governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). He served the BSP for 41 years. In 2001-2003, he was Alternate Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ International Ministries in Mandaluyong.
The Philippine government has eased restrictions on people’s movement and allowed the operation of some businesses in Metro Manila, Cebu City, and Laguna by putting these areas under what it calls a modified Enhanced Community Quarantine (MECQ). Some provinces that used to be under ECQ (enhanced community quarantine) have been placed under General Community Quarantine (GCQ).
Both, so say government officials, are meant to address the crisis in unemployment and to restart the economy. The decision to begin the transition to something approaching “business as usual” in the capital and other regions was based on the assumption — about which some experts are skeptical — that the rate of transmission of COVID-19 has fallen, and that, although social scientists are saying that things will not be the same as they used to be and that the country must be ready for a “new normal,” the disease will eventually disappear once a vaccine is found.
The aberration that is the “new normal” scenario rather than the latter possibility seems more likely of realization, however, and that the disease will not be a mere memory soon, or even later
The newspaper The Guardian, Cable News Network (CNN), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other media groups reported on May 14 that the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 “may never go away” — that the disease is likely to remain in circulation as part of the many threats to human health and lives like SARS, HIV-AIDS, measles and polio.
“This virus,” said WHO Emergencies Director Michael Ryan, “may become just another endemic virus in our communities, and this virus may never go away… this disease may settle into a long problem.”
He added that “No one can predict when this disease will disappear” and that even if a vaccine is found, it will require “a massive effort” to control its spread.
About a hundred vaccines are currently in development.
The WHO Mental Health Department also warned during the same virtual press conference in Geneva, Switzerland that COVID-19 is also leading to a global mental health crisis that “has to be addressed urgently.”
Debora Kestel, the Director of the Department, said that “the isolation, the fear, the uncertainty, the economic turmoil” — the consequences of the efforts by the countries affected to control the spread of the infection — “all cause psychological stress.” Kestel said the world should expect a spike in mental illness among children, young people, and healthcare workers.
She’s not entirely right. It is not only the latter who are in danger of mental illness during, in the aftermath of, and long after the pandemic. Everyone else is, quite simply because the world and living in it are no longer what people once knew — and what’s more, if Ryan is right, are also unlikely to ever be what they used to be.
HARRYARTS / FREEPIK
Every disease that can be transmitted from one individual to another makes human interaction — whether working together, living in the same community, or enjoying the company of others — a threat to one’s health and life. They make being apart rather than together the primary value, despite the fact that it is the one enduring characteristic of humans, their being social creatures, that has enabled them to physically survive and prevail as the dominant species on the planet. Despite the capitalist cult of competition dominant in many countries, human beings are at their best and at their sanest when they’re together.
HIV-AIDS made sex and even love dangerous. Despite the absurdities the culture industry has made them out to be, both are nevertheless what assure the continuity of the human race. But the AIDS challenge to human relationships eventually passed. It might well be asked if the same will not happen to that of COVID-19, and human beings will once again regard each other with trust and affection rather than with fear and suspicion.
Unfortunately, a number of factors suggest that it may be otherwise. If indeed the disease is likely to be among those others the human race has learned to live with, its mode of transmission seems likely to reinforce the resort to isolation, and hence the fear and the uncertainty that are its consequences that the WHO has warned are likely to afflict the mental health of large numbers of people globally.
Unlike AIDS, measles, polio or tuberculosis, COVID-19 can be transmitted to anyone regardless of age, sex and sexual preference, the country where one lives, and economic and social status. Even if a vaccine were found, the same modes of transmission will remain, and how effective the vaccine will be will be determined by whether everyone — meaning all 105 million or so Filipinos — are inoculated with it.
Because of the economic and social inequalities in Philippine feudal society, and the quite possibly prohibitive cost of an anti-novel coronavirus vaccine, that seems unlikely. That possibility means that the isolation and quarantine of those infected will continue to be among the preferred approaches, as problematic as they may be, to controlling the contagion.
Because of the way it is transmitted, the COVID-19 public health crisis is forcing upon people across the globe, including Filipinos, vast changes in lifestyles and culture. Such aspects of Philippine culture as touching and hugging each other, gathering during birthdays and other occasions, drinking at the corner store with friends, and even the middle and upper class habit of “beso beso” will have to yield to the imperative of controlling the contagion. In addition to the social impact of these changes are also political implications, among them the acceptance and approval by the majority of continuing the ban on the mass protests, demonstrations and political gatherings that are vital to democratic governance, and even the implementation of restrictive protocols when campaigning and voting for one’s preferred candidate for an elective post.
These changes will not only harden individualism and isolationism but also social and political disengagement and conformity. The “new normal” isn’t just about washing one’s hands, wearing face masks or social distancing as part of daily existence. It is also about ideological and intellectual isolation, obedience to authority, and inevitably, silence even in the face of the most egregious abuses.
Used as an excuse by demagogues and political charlatans to broaden their powers and suppress free expression, the COVID-19 contagion is turning into another handmaiden of tyranny and an instrument of the anti-human forces that have made this country — and much of the rest of the world — poor, ignorant and divided.
Some conspiracy theorists — not all of them are crackpots; they include at least one Nobel Prize laureate — allege that the virus that causes COVID-19 was created in the biological warfare laboratories of a power intent on replacing its US rival as the global hegemon. If true, which is unlikely, those responsible would be undermining the social foundations of human existence. But as problematic as the claim that the virus is man-made rather than the result of natural evolution may be, the fact is that the disease has been added to the possibility of nuclear annihilation, the realities of war and pollution, and the threat of global warming that have made the future of humankind even more uncertain than it used to be in the last century.
That, unfortunately, is also part of “the new normal” — which is just another name for the global anomaly spawned by big power contention, greed, environmental destruction, and COVID-19.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
Here are five facts: 1.) the overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19; 2.) we have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures: older people and others with underlying conditions; 3.) protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding; 4.) vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem; and, 5.) people are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
That’s according to Scott Atlas, the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He made the assertions on April 22, a month’s data behind him, backed by studies from Stanford University and New York University Medical Center.
That in turn is supported by Thomas Meunier’s findings (“Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic,” May 2020) that insistent lockdown policies tried by some countries were of no effect compared to the more basic social distancing policies.
Which in turn is backed up by Hua Qian and other’s recent study (“Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” April 2020) which showed that 80% of coronavirus infections happen inside the home. The New York government validated this when it found 66% of infections were of citizens locked-down inside their homes.
Now New York has a population density of 10,194 per km², which alone made imposing a lockdown difficult. Compare that with a city such as Tokyo (6,158/ km²) or a country like Taiwan (649/ km²) which did not impose lockdowns but had their coronavirus situations seemingly under control. Our National Capital Region has a population density of 21,00 per km², Manila alone would be 42,000 per km². A lot, including families, live in homes averaging between 50-70 sq.m.
What makes the entire thing complicated is the seemingly moving target of our community quarantine (and its varied permutations). The official documents don’t seem to indicate specifically what it is. The original understanding was to “flatten the curve.” Then it became “squashing the curve,” to “allow completion of mass testing,” to “wait for vaccine,” and then to “save every single life.” Even “flatten the curve” has evolved into something new: to “prevent overwhelming our hospitals.”
But this just leads to further questions: as to hospital capacity, one needs to only look at the hospital bed utilization rate dedicated to coronavirus patients and extrapolate from there. And surely at two months one would have the data to determine how many beds and other resources are needed considering 91% of those tested yielded negative results and that 80% of those positive are asymptomatic.
Complete contact tracing? Why? What good will it do at this stage? From the looks of it contact tracing is commonsensically helpful to prevent a pandemic in its early stage — but we already know many of our population are infected and according to epidemiologist Dr. John Wong we’ve been actually infected since January (ie., the first wave was January, the second wave is now or already happened last April; “Epidemiologist warns of ‘3rd wave’ of infections,” PDI, May 7).
Complete mass testing? Why? At this stage of the pandemic, what for? If somebody is asymptomatic or having very mild symptoms, as 80-90% of infected likely are, then what’s the point? You can’t isolate everyone or put them in the hospital. So why not focus testing for clinical/diagnostic purposes on those exhibiting severe symptoms? But if Stanford and other studies shows that only around less than 0.01% — 1.7% of those infected need hospitalization and the infection fatality rate (IFR) is between .1-.2% (a University of Washington study declared an IFR of 1.3% but admits their calculation excluded asymptomatic patients) then why lock down everyone, including reasonably healthy people, when the hospital system can focus their attention on the elderly or those with chronic illnesses, which apparently is what’s crucial at this point, particularly when the feared next wave does come.
Another suggestion is to retain lockdowns until a vaccine comes. But how many years will that take? The fastest vaccine developed was for Ebola and it took five years. HIV and SARS still don’t have vaccines. We have vaccines for flu but they are only 55% effective and the flu still kills 76,000 Filipinos annually.
And about saving every life? As of May 15, representing the second full month of our lockdown, 806 have died from the coronavirus. To put that into context without minimizing the tragedy of those deaths, on monthly average, 300 Filipinos die by suicide, 1,000 from car crashes, 5,000 from stroke, 5,333 from cancer, 6,333 from pneumonia and flu, and 7,000 from heart disease.
And, yes, one can die from hunger too: a UNICEF study showed that 95 Filipino children die from malnutrition daily. That’s 2,850 deaths monthly, 32,000 yearly. For children alone, during ordinary economic times.
One can only speculate how many lives will be put in dire straits in the coming post-lockdown economy.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
A PROPOSAL announced this week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron marks a real advance in the European Union’s sluggish response to the novel coronavirus. Their idea is for the European Commission to borrow some 500 billion euros ($548 billion) and distribute the money as grants to the member states most in need of fiscal support. That’s a much bigger number than previously contemplated, and the idea of giving grants rather than making loans is even bolder.
In coming to this agreement, Germany has veered toward France’s position, and that’s a move in the right direction.
Admittedly, to say that details remain to be worked out would be an understatement even by EU standards. The two leaders haven’t said exactly how they would like the money to be allocated, or exactly how the new borrowings would be repaid — crucial and extremely contentious questions. And though an understanding between France and Germany on a new fiscal plan is necessary for anything to happen, it isn’t sufficient. Support from all 27 members of the union will be needed to move forward, and fiscally conservative governments are already lodging objections.
It’s hard to quarrel with Merkel’s account of why a program of this kind — and preferably bigger still — is needed. As she pointed out, “There is a risk that the EU’s cohesion will be endangered by the economic effects of this virus.” Without help, the countries worst hit with cases of COVID-19, especially Italy, will struggle to cope with the budgetary consequences. That’s partly because, as members of the single-currency system, they lack independent recourse to monetary accommodation of their emergency public spending. Italy’s debts are already onerous. The European Central Bank has stepped forward with powerful monetary-policy support, but its ability to direct help to the countries that need it most is constrained.
The EU’s hesitation has added to popular resentment in Italy and elsewhere, and things could get worse if the hoped-for economic recovery is delayed or interrupted. Euroskeptic sentiment was on the rise even before the pandemic’s fiscal demands drew fresh attention to the weakness of the EU’s policy tools.
In the longer term, Europe requires a permanent budget-policy framework to furnish the euro system with the necessary fiscal instruments. That means EU borrowing, EU taxes, and EU public spending. This, however, is work that will take years, supposing it can ever be accomplished. Europe would need a new treaty — a drawn-out process that requires unanimity — and would have to address issues of identity and solidarity that up to now it has preferred to dodge. Because of the coronavirus, a much faster remedy is essential. A temporary de facto union, skirting the need for a new treaty and consequent delays, is the best way forward.
This new proposal could start to fit the bill. Granted, even in getting to a short-term fix, complex negotiations will be needed over who gets the money and who in the end pays. The effort might fizzle out, like previous attempts. But in agreeing with Macron and recognizing, for the first time, that a single-currency area can’t work well under stress without a unified fiscal policy, Merkel has taken a big and possibly momentous step.
By Elena Conis, Michael McCoydandJessie A. Moravek
ON A SPRING MORNING in 1955, a pair of press officers greeted a mob of reporters in a stately hall on the University of Michigan campus. The officers had hot news: A clinical trial of the long-awaited polio vaccine had proved it to be safe and effective. The reporters nearly rioted in their scramble to spread the word. Once they did, church bells rang, and people ran into the streets to cheer.
In the midst of our current pandemic, collective hope for a vaccine is just as palpable and regularly reinforced — as it was with this week’s news of promising results from a small coronavirus vaccine test. The federal government’s top infectious-disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said that “the ultimate game changer in this will be a vaccine.” President Trump assured us that a vaccine is not far off. Television hosts and pundits claim that this goal is within reach because we’ve beaten infectious killers, such as polio, with vaccines in the past.
But America’s experience with polio should give us pause, not hope. The first effective polio vaccine followed decades of research and testing. Once fully tested, it was approved with record speed. Then there were life-threatening manufacturing problems. Distribution problems followed. Political fights broke out. After several years, enough Americans were vaccinated that cases plummeted — but they persisted in poor communities for over a decade. Polio’s full story should make us wary of promises that we will soon have the coronavirus under control with a vaccine.
The first polio epidemic in the United States hit Vermont in 1894, killing 18 and leaving 58 permanently paralyzed. It was only the beginning. Over the next several decades, warm-weather outbreaks became common, striking communities one year and sparing them the next, sometimes only to return later with added force. A New York City outbreak killed more than 100 people in 1907. In 1916, polio returned and killed 6,000. The disease primarily struck children. It could kill up to 25% of the stricken. And it left many paralyzed, consigning some to life in an iron lung.
Scientists knew polio was caused by a virus but did not know how it spread. (We know now that it was spread by consumption of food or water contaminated by the virus in fecal matter.) Then, as now, the only way to stay safe was not to be infected. Towns with cases closed movie theaters, pools, amusement parks and summer camps. They canceled long-planned fairs and festivals. Parents kept children close to home. Those who could afford to do so fled to the country. Still, cases mounted. Among three early polio vaccines developed in the 1930s, two proved ineffective, another deadly.
Finally, in April 1954, a promising vaccine, developed by Jonas Salk’s laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh, entered a large, yearlong clinical trial. On the day in 1955 when the press officers greeted the reporters in Ann Arbor, they shared the results: The vaccine, containing inactivated polio virus, was safe. It was also 80% to 90% effective in preventing polio.
The federal government licensed the vaccine within hours. Manufacturers hastened into production. A foundation promised to buy the first $9 million worth and provide it to the nation’s first and second graders. A national campaign got underway.
But less than a month later, the effort ground to a halt. Officials reported six polio cases linked to a vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories in Berkeley, Calif. The surgeon general asked Cutter to recall its lots. The National Institutes of Health asked all manufacturers to suspend production until they met new safety standards. Federal investigators found that Cutter had failed to completely kill the virus in some vaccine batches. The flawed vaccines caused more than 200 polio cases and 11 deaths.
The vaccine program partly restarted two months later, but more mayhem followed. With the vaccine in short supply, rumors spread of black markets and unscrupulous doctors charging exorbitant fees. One vaccine manufacturer planned to vaccinate its employees’ children first, and then sent a letter to shareholders promising their children and grandchildren priority access, too.
States asked the federal government to create a program to ensure fair distribution. A Senate bill proposed making the vaccine free to all minors. A House bill proposed free vaccines only for children in need; according to newspaper accounts from the time, discussion of the bill triggered an “angry row” that forced the speaker to call a “cooling off” recess. The $30 million Polio Vaccination Assistance Act that President Dwight Eisenhower signed that August was a compromise that essentially let states decide for themselves.
Polio cases fell sharply over the next few years. Then in 1958, as national attention began to flag, cases ticked back up — among the unvaccinated. Polio cases clustered in urban areas, largely among poor people of color with limited health care access. States’ “pattern of polio,” government epidemiologists noted, had become “quite different from that generally seen in the past.”
Three years later, the federal government approved an oral polio vaccine, developed by Albert Sabin’s laboratory in Cincinnati, containing weakened, not inactivated, virus. By the end of that year, polio infections were down 90% from 1955 levels. In 1979, the country recorded its last community-transmitted case.
Today, decades into a global vaccination campaign, polio persists in just three countries. The battle against the disease has been a century-long march. And it has required a sustained commitment to continuing polio vaccination — a commitment now compromised as global polio vaccination efforts have been put on hold to slow the coronavirus’s spread.
Granted, there are countless differences between the fight against the coronavirus and the long-ago fight against polio. The global capacity for vaccine research and development is far greater than it was in the 1950s. Drug approval and manufacturing safety protocols have been refined since then, too. Already, just months into the current pandemic, there are far more vaccines in development against the coronavirus than there ever were against polio.
But the regulatory thresholds we’ve spent decades putting into place are being swept aside to speed that development. And some of the coronavirus vaccines now in “lightning fast” development — by new biotech firms, university labs and familiar pharmaceutical giants — are as novel as the first polio vaccine was in 1955.
If one does prove safe and effective, we will face the same challenges we faced then — of making enough to protect the population, without causing harm, and distributing it without exacerbating existing inequities in our society.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Elena Conis is a historian and a professor in the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, where Michael McCoyd is a doctoral candidate in computer science and Jessie A. Moravek is a doctoral student in environmental science, policy and management.
SHAREEF Abdur-Rahim spent 12 years as a player in the National Basketball Association. A time he described as full of growth and learning. It is the same experience he is having well into retirement.
Currently the NBA G League president, Mr. Abdur-Rahim said he is enjoying what he is doing right now but admits he is still learning the ropes, something he said he is willing to go through, knowing that it would only help him in dispensing his duties as leader of the NBA’s minor league organization.
The one-time NBA All-Star and 2000 Olympic gold medal winner said he is drawing from his vast experience as an NBA player, and later on as coach and league executive, as he settles into the role of G League president.
“All of my experiences in the NBA contribute to what I do now as G League president. Definitely I continue to grow in my position. There are still things I’m learning. But I’m enjoying my role, you continue to learn,” said Mr. Abdur-Rahim, who took the G League position in 2018, in a video conference call with Philippine media on May 14.
Mr. Abdur-Rahim, 43, was selected by the Vancouver Grizzlies with the third overall pick in the 1996 rookie draft.
He spent five years with the Grizzlies before being sent to the Atlanta Hawks in 2001.
With the Hawks, his career further soared, earning his lone All-Star nod in 2002.
In 2003 he was shipped to the Portland TrailBlazers, where he played for two years, before ending the last three years of his career with the Sacramento Kings.
After playing, he spent some time as assistant coach of the Kings then later on as assistant general manager of the team.
He was named associate vice-president of basketball operations of the NBA before taking the job with the G League in 2018.
Mr. Abdur-Rahim shared that he did not envision his post-playing career to chart such a path but his desire to continue to grow and challenge himself swung him in such a direction.
“When I retired I kind of went through a process of wanting to grow more. I spent time coaching. Went back to school and finished my education. I can’t say that I set out to go this path but all these experiences contributed to being where I am now,” he said.
A little over a year into his latest role, Mr. Abdur-Rahim said he is determined to make it work for him and the G League, guided by the organization’s push to continue developing NBA-level talent.
He said he is viewing his position in the G League as an opportunity to grow as an individual and contribute to the growth of others.
“It’s an opportunity to take my experience and share it with young players like Kai Sotto. It’s an outlet to continue to learn and grow and, at the same time, contribute,” said Mr. Abdur-Rahim, making special mention of Filipino prospect Sotto, who recently committed to play in the G League as he goes for his NBA dream.
AFTER SUSPENDING all of its competitions early this year because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, world basketball governing body FIBA had decided to update its calendar for its 3×3 2020 season, including moving the Olympic qualifying tournaments to next year.
With the Olympic Games forced to be rescheduled to next year as COVID-19 remains a growing concern, FIBA deemed it fit to push back the conduct of the 3×3 qualifiers, originally slated to be held in the first of half of 2020, to 2021 as well.
In March, FIBA 3X3 said that there would be no official 3×3 tournaments taking place before August 2020 at the earliest due to the current situation with COVID-19.
The Philippines earned a spot for the qualifiers and was set to compete in Bangalore, India, from March 18 to 22.
The quartet of Joshua Munzon, Alvin Pasaol, CJ Perez, and Mo Tautuaa comprises Team Philippines, which is set to begin its campaign in Pool C along with Slovenia, France, Qatar, and the Dominican Republic.
The end goal of the team is to win one of the three spots up for grabs in the tournament to qualify for the Tokyo Games, where 3×3 basketball is set to make its debut.
With the deferment, the team would have to wait a little longer before taking a shot at making the Games.
Supporters of the team, including long-time backer Chooks-to-Go, vowed to sustain their support in the country’s push in the sport, which has made significant strides in the last few years, as well as to the team competing in the qualifiers.
While the qualifiers were deferred, FIBA decided to scrap some 3×3 events in 2020 altogether, namely, four World Tour events (Prague, Lausanne, Los Angeles, Nanjing), FIBA 3×3 U23 Nations League, qualifiers to the various Zone Cups and the FIBA 3×3 U17 Zone Cups (including qualifiers).
The basketball body, however, said it remains committed to bring 3×3 back in action and continues to work actively in the planning and organization of the FIBA 3×3 World Tour, Challengers, Women’s Series, Zone Cups and World Cups (U23 and U18) in the remainder of 2020 as well as in January 2021 if needed.
It also reiterated that it continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation on a regular basis and communicate any further updates. — Michael Angelo S. Murillo
MUMBAI — Marin Cilic thinks winning the US Open in front of empty stands at Arthur Ashe Stadium would be forever remembered as a Grand Slam triumph with a very big asterisk, the former champion told Reuters.
The tennis season came to a halt in March due to the coronavirus pandemic and the shutdown will continue at least until the end of July with many countries in lockdown and air travel bans in place.
The US Open is scheduled to take place from Aug. 31 and organizers are looking at a wide range of scenarios to get the show on, including keeping fans out.
Cilic, who held the silver trophy aloft at Flushing Meadows in 2014 in the biggest achievement of his career, felt a crowd-free environment would devalue the accomplishment.
“I just feel that it’s going to more or less feel like practice matches,” the former world number three said in an interview from Croatia.
“It’s always going to be … in the years to come, ‘oh, you know that guy won a US Open in 2020 without fans.’ I don’t think it’s going to have that weight…
“It wouldn’t be the best scenario.”
Cilic thinks the international travel required to get professional tennis up and running again means the issue might end up being academic in any case.
“Tennis season is slightly different than football, than basketball,” he added.
“They have seasons to finish off, and the next season is depending on this season as well. For tennis, if we start in December or in January, it’s not going to change too much.
“I believe that there won’t be any tournaments without fans.
“Basically the whole tour is revolving a lot on sponsors and people coming to the tournaments. Sponsors are investing money because people are coming to watch tennis and see the players.”
While many players have been left with a lot of spare time and an empty schedule during the shutdown, the break has proved timely for Cilic, who became a parent for the first time in January. — Reuters
SHE may be early into her career in ONE Championship but upstart Denice “The Menace Fairtex” Zamboanga is very much determined to see her goal of winning a world title through.
Having a solid run to begin her time in ONE, Ms. Zamboanga said she is confident of her talent and believes that given the opportunity she could achieve greater things in mixed martial arts.
Twenty-three-year-old Zamboanga (4-0) won her first two matches in ONE in convincing fashion and is turning heads in the women’s atomweight division.
She debuted in December last year in Malaysia, earning a unanimous decision victory over hometown bet Hayatun Jihin Radzuan.
Then in February in Singapore, she followed it up with another unanimous decision win against veteran Mei Yamaguchi of Japan.
The twin victories sparked conversation that Ms. Zamboanga could be prime for a shot at the title currently held by long-time champion Angela “The Unstoppable” Lee.
As it turned out, the title shot buzz did not go unnoticed as ONE Chairman and CEO Chatri Sityodtong agreed and offered Ms. Zamboanga the next title shot against reigning champ Lee.
“I’m super grateful and overwhelmed. I can’t express how happy I am,” said Ms. Zamboanga, who finished information technology in college and currently trains in Thailand with the famous Fairtex Training Camp, of the big opportunity presented to her.
“This is the biggest challenge I will face and I will train so hard for this. She is one of the people I’ve always watched in MMA, and now I have to compete against her for the world title. It will definitely be a hard one. Everything I will show inside the Circle will be a surprise. I want to surprise everyone on fight night,” she added.
Ms. Zamboanga went on to say that as she prepares for her fight against Ms. Lee, she will also be thinking of winning for her team and the entire Philippines, making them proud.
“Beating a star like Angela Lee and winning a world title means so much to me. It’s like a dream come true — a win over my idol and a win for the Philippines,” she said.
“I represent my country not just locally but internationally. I’m so proud to be a Filipino. Even if I fight internationally, I can feel the support of the Filipino fans, even through their messages and cheers for me.”
ONE Championship events are currently on hold as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rages on. But it has expressed its determination and readiness to resume things once conditions permit so. — Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Among the many offshoots of the airing of The Last Dance has been the revival of “Best of All Time” discussions in hoops circles. That Michael Jordan reportedly decided on thumbing up the production of the documentary series shortly after LeBron James, against whom he is often pitted for the accolade, engineered a remarkable comeback in the 2016 National Basketball Association Finals speaks volumes of his mindset, not to mention competitive spirit. He had previously sat on comprehensive behind-the-scenes footage of the Bulls’ title run in 1998, content in his place at the top.
In any case, reception to The Last Dance has been overwhelmingly in Jordan’s favor. The timing was nothing short of perfect. It not only had a captive audience under quarantine and thirsty for compelling entertainment. Prevailing circumstances ensured that recency bias would favor his position; in an ESPN survey taken shortly after the seventh and eighth episodes became available last week, fans picked him in a landslide over James through a dozen different categories. Mission accomplished, and on several fronts.
Not that Jordan needed to be given air time equivalent to three-quarters of an hour speaking without filters in order to dictate the narrative of The Last Dance. In a deal he made with NBA Entertainment, he was always going to have the last say about any part of the series deftly directed by 30 For 30 veteran Jason Hehir. All the same, it’s clear that he was stoked enough to remind all and sundry of the hold he had — and still has — over the sport. Which is all well and good. What isn’t: how players with vested interests have also used the occasion to pile on James.
Take Paul Pierce, for instance. Never one to give his longtime nemesis much credit, he noted in “NBA Countdown” yesterday that James shouldn’t even be part of the Top Five. “What has LeBron did (sic) to build up any organization from the ground?” He asked. “I’m talking about these players, Top Five players. Bill Russell built the organization of Boston, Kareem, Magic, Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kobe, Bird. These guys are all-time Top 10 players who helped build their organization or continued the tradition.”
Pierce’s take is, to be sure, informed by his dealings with James, who — save for a brief period in the late 2000s — had his number throughout his playing career. Nonetheless, he seems to hold his rival to a standard more apt for general managers. And, needless to say, other analysts in the episode called him out for his outlandish position. Interestingly enough, Jordan has kept quiet all this time, preferring to let others do the talking. And, following The Last Dance, others have, and will for some time to come.
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.
