Top Courts of Pakistan orders to reopen malls and shops. Court says Covid 19 is not pandemic in Pakistan and the lockdown should gets end. Total cases reaches 40 thousands in Pakistan

Lockdown ends in Pakistan, Malls and Market to be reopen-SC

The coronavirus started its rampage more than 150 days ago from the central Chinese city of Wuhan. The Wihan virus has infected over 4.73 million people and killed more than 300,000 people across the globe. And the numbers are increasing every hour. But China continues to shrug off its responsibly. Should China be made to pay for sending almost a third of the world's population on lockdown, destroying economies and lives on an unprecedented scale? Watch 'The Story of the Wuhan Virus' on WION Wideangle and decide.

WION Wideangle: The story of the Wuhan Virus | WION News | COVID-19 Pandemic

Restaurants are turning to new delivery methods as quarantine continues with robots filling in some roles to increase distance between people.

Automated delivery drives restaurant changes during pandemic

A Sao Paulo gym instructor has taken to his rooftop to host outdoor workout sessions for neighbours amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Rooftop workouts a hit in virus-stricken Brazil

Coronaviruses mutate naturally within their animal or human hosts, many of which produce no functional change in the virus.

Significant changes in the structure of a coronavirus can result in a “gain of function,” that is, enhanced pathogenicity and/or an increase in transmissibility among animals or between animals and humans.

Such a “gain of function” has also been generated artificially through bioengineering, which has been demonstrated using a wide variety of viruses.

Two recently-published scientific studies provide evidence that COVID-19 resulted from artificial manipulation of the structure of coronaviruses.

The<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199"> first study </a>showed that COVID-19 samples, taken early in the pandemic, had already achieved a very high affinity for binding to human receptors, greater than all the other tested species including bats, the postulated source of the virus.

The next highest binding affinity after humans was, not bats, but pangolins (spiny anteaters), which have previously been <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008421">excluded</a> as the animal source for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lead author of the study<a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-virus-researchers-uncover-evidence-implying-covid-19-was-created-in-a-lab?fbclid=IwAR0OhZqkRBeysQCrx5rEcsDH7VWOhnjqjq4_0o5axzVQi3iPYalJSt2Q3Po"> stated</a>, “there are some highly unusual features, including optimal human adaptation, that in the absence of identification of a close to identical virus in an animal population from which COVID-19 could have arisen, would point in the direction of human intervention at some point in the evolution of COVID-19.”

That conclusion was buttressed by a <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full">second study</a>, which compared the evolutionary dynamics between the COVID-19 and SARS-CoV, the coronavirus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic.

Those scientists wrote they were “surprised to find” that COVID-19, early on, resembled SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2002-2003 pandemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission.

Their observations suggested that by the time COVID-19 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted for human transmission.

When combined with data <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/explained-scientific-indications-that-show-covid-19-is-man-made-298868">published</a> in other scientific studies, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 is man-made.

The reason COVID-19 binds with high affinity to human and pangolin and not bat receptors is likely because the pangolin receptor binding domain or part of it was artificially “spliced” onto a bat coronavirus backbone and then run through cell cultures and animal models that would optimize it for binding to human receptors.

In 2015, Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina and Zheng-Li Shi, the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/">“bat woman” </a>from the Wuhan Institute of Virology jointly published a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985">scientific article</a> describing the combination of the receptor-binding spike protein from a newly isolated coronavirus (SHC014) and the “backbone” from SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic.

The above experiment produced a novel virus, chimera SHC014-MA15, which showed “robust viral replication both in vitro [cell cultures] and in vivo [animals],” using models adapted to test human infectivity.

Animal models for the addition of structures important to the function of coronaviruses in animals and humans, called O-linked glycans, have been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/">used </a>by Chinese scientists at the Chongqing Military Medical University, as well as animal models developed in China to <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aalas/cm/2007/00000057/00000005/art00003">specifically select</a> for the human angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor, the entry step for COVID-19 infection.

There should now be no doubt that the origin of COVID-19 can be better explained as the product of bioengineering rather than a yet unidentified naturally-occurring recombination event. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Coronaviruses mutate naturally within their animal or human hosts, many of which produce no functional change in the virus. Significant changes in the structure of a coronavirus can result in a “gain of function,” that is, enhanced pathogenicity and/or an increase in transmissibility among animals or between animals and humans.

Coronaviruses mutate naturally within their animal or human hosts, many of which produce no functional change in the virus. Significant changes in the structure of a coronavirus can result in a “gain of function,” that is, enhanced pathogenicity and/or an increase in transmissibility among animals or between animals and humans. Such a “gain of function” has also been generated artificially through bioengineering, which has been demonstrated using a wide variety of viruses. Two recently-published scientific studies provide evidence that COVID-19 resulted from artificial manipulation of the structure of coronaviruses. The first study showed that COVID-19 samples, taken early in the pandemic, had already achieved a very high affinity for binding to human receptors, greater than all the other tested species including bats, the postulated source of the virus. The next highest binding affinity after humans was, not bats, but pangolins (spiny anteaters), which have previously been excluded as the animal source for the COVID-19 pandemic. The lead author of the study stated, “there are some highly unusual features, including optimal human adaptation, that in the absence of identification of a close to identical virus in an animal population from which COVID-19 could have arisen, would point in the direction of human intervention at some point in the evolution of COVID-19.” That conclusion was buttressed by a second study, which compared the evolutionary dynamics between the COVID-19 and SARS-CoV, the coronavirus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic. Those scientists wrote they were “surprised to find” that COVID-19, early on, resembled SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2002-2003 pandemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission. Their observations suggested that by the time COVID-19 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted for human transmission. When combined with data published in other scientific studies, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 is man-made. The reason COVID-19 binds with high affinity to human and pangolin and not bat receptors is likely because the pangolin receptor binding domain or part of it was artificially “spliced” onto a bat coronavirus backbone and then run through cell cultures and animal models that would optimize it for binding to human receptors. In 2015, Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina and Zheng-Li Shi, the “bat woman” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology jointly published a scientific article describing the combination of the receptor-binding spike protein from a newly isolated coronavirus (SHC014) and the “backbone” from SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic. The above experiment produced a novel virus, chimera SHC014-MA15, which showed “robust viral replication both in vitro [cell cultures] and in vivo [animals],” using models adapted to test human infectivity. Animal models for the addition of structures important to the function of coronaviruses in animals and humans, called O-linked glycans, have been used by Chinese scientists at the Chongqing Military Medical University, as well as animal models developed in China to specifically select for the human angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor, the entry step for COVID-19 infection. There should now be no doubt that the origin of COVID-19 can be better explained as the product of bioengineering rather than a yet unidentified naturally-occurring recombination event. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Evidence indicates COVID-19 was artificially adapted to infect humans

A Dallas suburb is helping seniors isolated in their homes by the coronavirus pandemic with regular telephone chats. The program being offered by the city of Plano is among those that have popped up across the U.S. during the pandemic to help older adults with a simple offer to engage in small talk.

Phone chats combat senior isolation in Texas city

Dozens of nurses and healthcare workers took a Zumba class on Sunday to boost morale before returning to work to treat COVID-19 patients.

Kenya nurses dance to boost morale amid pandemic

Soaring temperatures sent Israelis to beaches across the country on Sunday (May 17) with many violating the coronavirus restrictions. Some areas in the country and Israeli-occupied West Bank exceeded 40 degrees Celsius in the country's first seasonal heatwave.

People flock to beaches as Israel, West Bank bake in heatwave

Roman Catholics in a town in eastern France were able to attend mass in their cars on Sunday (May 17), in the country's first drive-in religious service since the start of a lockdown eight weeks ago aimed at halting the spread of the Coronavirus.

French Catholics celebrate mass in parking lot

Dr Sun Yat Sen, physician, philosopher, and the first president of the new Nationalist Republic of China, died of natural causes in 1925 at a relatively young 53 years of age. But, this was not before mentoring and driving a revolution that gave birth to a modern independent China. &nbsp;

Starting in 1911, Sun Yat-Sen succeeded in melding the warlords that then roamed across China, into a republic. At the time, the country was nominally under a non-functioning Qing Dynasty. &nbsp;

Political power was devolved into the hands of a main political party, broadly socialist in outlook, the Kuomintang (KMT). Sun Yat-Sen became its first president. &nbsp;&nbsp;

But soon enough, the anti-monarchical Sun Yat-Sen gave up his position of administrative power to preside over the political party apparatus instead. &nbsp;

The KMT, established on the mainland in 1911, also ruled unbroken in Taiwan till 2000. Taiwan now has the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) at the helm. The country was under martial law for a long time, from 1948 to 1987. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Today, Taiwan is in a process of democratic political reform to become more responsive to the wishes of its people, even as some elements do favour reunification with Communist China. But the bulk of the people regard them as infiltrators from the mainland, not to be trusted.&nbsp;

Sun Yat-Sen himself, as a world figure, is today relegated to the shadows of history. He was, in the end, the founder-mentor of the losing side in a momentous civil war. His successor General Chiang Kai Shek, who died only in 1975, was driven out of the mainland along with the Nationalists, by Mao Ze Dong and his Communists in1949. &nbsp;

The Mao era saw many excesses and miscalculations that resulted in the death of more than 30 million Chinese, but the Chairman held on doggedly to power until his death. After him, the Deng Xiaoping era was hugely successful economically for China till he, in turn, retired in 1992. And then came the turn of new strong men who pushed ahead with the economic miracle but with increasingly jingoistic and militarist overtones. It is this groundswell that raised Xi Jinping via the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).&nbsp;

But now, the time may be coming when Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai Shek’s nationalist successors can return the favour to mainland China. It is already challenged internally in some of its provinces. Hong Kong and Tibet are not happy at all. Neither is Xinjiang. All this despite the use of an iron fist to curb dissent. Can China become a democracy once again nudged in that direction by America and others? We will only know once all the chips have fallen in the ongoing drama. &nbsp;

There is, first going to be a strenuous competition for world domination. But this struggle is sure to be lost by a Communist China that had hoped to win by incremental steps, without having to fight economically or militarily. But this over clever thinking of President Xi Jinping is now being openly challenged by many countries led by America. &nbsp;

Red China is globally out of favour after the havoc wreaked by the bio-warfare unleashed using the Wuhan Virus and its ham-fisted attempts at cover-up, threats, and inducements. &nbsp;

The one-man virtual dictatorship of President Xi Jinping, combined with his bizarre, anachronistic and imperial megalomania, has put a question mark over the survival of Red Chinese Communism itself. The world is coalescing to curb its excesses, and a brutal, multi-nation economic blockade of China is on the cards.&nbsp;

Chiang Kai Shek and his Nationalists were driven out of mainland China to the nearby island of Formosa, so named by the Portuguese. It is now known by its older Chinese name of Taiwan. The Nationalists, impressively enough, have never given up the dream of reclaiming the mainland one day. &nbsp;

The Nationalists, who style themselves The Republic of China (ROC), did, in the beginning, run the whole of China for 38 years. &nbsp;They were driven out to the nearby large island, just 100 miles off the mainland. &nbsp;Taiwan is 240 miles long and 60 to 90 miles wide. But this 13, 976 sq. miles has proved enough to become a prosperous country with $1.3 trillion GDP, and a per capita income of over $55,000.&nbsp;

This despite being converted, 1971 onwards, into a de jure state of 23.7 million people. Still, most countries maintain representative offices at Taipei, its capital, which acts as de jure embassies. Taiwan never stopped being recognised officially by a handful of countries. It interacts with most leading world bodies but under a pseudonym. Or as a guest/observer. Or in some other unofficial capacity. &nbsp;

But despite the best efforts of Red China to either subsume or destroy it, Taiwan has secured its independent place in the world.&nbsp;

The People’s Republic Of China (PRC) or Red China lays claim to it under its “One China” credo. America aided and abetted this assertion. First, the ROC lost its UN seat to the PRC in 1971. That was when Red China and America entered into an entente cordiale during the Nixon administration. This not only raised Red China gradually to become the manufacturer to the world but also the No.2 economic power after America itself. &nbsp;

China now plans to topple America from its pinnacle. This quest was going well according to some analysts. But only till its infliction of the Wuhan Virus on the world changed everything. &nbsp;

Meanwhile, Taiwan, after losing its UN seat to Red China saw the US sever diplomatic relations too in 1978. Then the US let its defence treaty to protect the ROC lapse in 1980 as well.&nbsp;

But, all this is about to change in 2020. The US has announced it will reassess the status of not just Taiwan but a restive Hong Kong as well. This could well be followed by Tibet where the US has already questioned China’s handling of the Panchen Lama. Then will come the artificial islands and military bases on the South China Sea. The claims of territory in Bhutan, the various territorial claims and line of actual control (LAC) disputes with India. 
 
All this, in the context of acute sanctions placed on trade with China, capital flight, seizure of Chinese assets abroad, revocation of one-sided treaties and diplomatic loss of face everywhere.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the ROC keeps itself in a state of Israel-like military readiness for the ever-present existentialist threat. The size of its lean military tops half a million soldiers. It keeps most of its military machine underground, in reinforced facilities. Importantly, it is also a covert nuclear power, a status wheedled out of the US, a parting gift, to maintain the balance.&nbsp;

Today, as the sun on the ROC’s flag is shining brightly once again, that balance will help Taiwan eventually resurrect mainland China from the tyranny of a Communist dictatorship. China helped America destroy the USSR via the Nixon-Kissinger- Mao alliance. Today, as the last bastion of totalitarian Communism, China too will be destroyed by America.&nbsp;

Dr Sun Yat-Sen is secretly regarded by many Chinese as the true father of modern China. He was certainly an astute thinker. He famously let it be known that only 5 per cent of the people are capable of “Pre-seeing”, or visionary thinking. Another 10 per cent could promptly understand once they were told, the “Post-seeing”. But the bulk of people, 85 per cent of any populace, is “Unseeing”. They are incapable of understanding theoretical postulates. They must be instructed. &nbsp;

Today, the world is ready to instruct and command a regime change in China. The wheels may grind slowly but they are sure to grind fine. The direction is set. It is now only a matter of time.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Dr Sun Yat Sen, physician, philosopher, and the first president of the new Nationalist Republic of China, died of natural causes in 1925 at a relatively young 53 years of age.

Dr Sun Yat Sen, physician, philosopher, and the first president of the new Nationalist Republic of China, died of natural causes in 1925 at a relatively young 53 years of age. But, this was not before mentoring and driving a revolution that gave birth to a modern independent China. Starting in 1911, Sun Yat-Sen succeeded in melding the warlords that then roamed across China, into a republic. At the time, the country was nominally under a non-functioning Qing Dynasty. Political power was devolved into the hands of a main political party, broadly socialist in outlook, the Kuomintang (KMT). Sun Yat-Sen became its first president. But soon enough, the anti-monarchical Sun Yat-Sen gave up his position of administrative power to preside over the political party apparatus instead. The KMT, established on the mainland in 1911, also ruled unbroken in Taiwan till 2000. Taiwan now has the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) at the helm. The country was under martial law for a long time, from 1948 to 1987. Today, Taiwan is in a process of democratic political reform to become more responsive to the wishes of its people, even as some elements do favour reunification with Communist China. But the bulk of the people regard them as infiltrators from the mainland, not to be trusted. Sun Yat-Sen himself, as a world figure, is today relegated to the shadows of history. He was, in the end, the founder-mentor of the losing side in a momentous civil war. His successor General Chiang Kai Shek, who died only in 1975, was driven out of the mainland along with the Nationalists, by Mao Ze Dong and his Communists in1949. The Mao era saw many excesses and miscalculations that resulted in the death of more than 30 million Chinese, but the Chairman held on doggedly to power until his death. After him, the Deng Xiaoping era was hugely successful economically for China till he, in turn, retired in 1992. And then came the turn of new strong men who pushed ahead with the economic miracle but with increasingly jingoistic and militarist overtones. It is this groundswell that raised Xi Jinping via the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). But now, the time may be coming when Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai Shek’s nationalist successors can return the favour to mainland China. It is already challenged internally in some of its provinces. Hong Kong and Tibet are not happy at all. Neither is Xinjiang. All this despite the use of an iron fist to curb dissent. Can China become a democracy once again nudged in that direction by America and others? We will only know once all the chips have fallen in the ongoing drama. There is, first going to be a strenuous competition for world domination. But this struggle is sure to be lost by a Communist China that had hoped to win by incremental steps, without having to fight economically or militarily. But this over clever thinking of President Xi Jinping is now being openly challenged by many countries led by America. Red China is globally out of favour after the havoc wreaked by the bio-warfare unleashed using the Wuhan Virus and its ham-fisted attempts at cover-up, threats, and inducements. The one-man virtual dictatorship of President Xi Jinping, combined with his bizarre, anachronistic and imperial megalomania, has put a question mark over the survival of Red Chinese Communism itself. The world is coalescing to curb its excesses, and a brutal, multi-nation economic blockade of China is on the cards. Chiang Kai Shek and his Nationalists were driven out of mainland China to the nearby island of Formosa, so named by the Portuguese. It is now known by its older Chinese name of Taiwan. The Nationalists, impressively enough, have never given up the dream of reclaiming the mainland one day. The Nationalists, who style themselves The Republic of China (ROC), did, in the beginning, run the whole of China for 38 years. They were driven out to the nearby large island, just 100 miles off the mainland. Taiwan is 240 miles long and 60 to 90 miles wide. But this 13, 976 sq. miles has proved enough to become a prosperous country with $1.3 trillion GDP, and a per capita income of over $55,000. This despite being converted, 1971 onwards, into a de jure state of 23.7 million people. Still, most countries maintain representative offices at Taipei, its capital, which acts as de jure embassies. Taiwan never stopped being recognised officially by a handful of countries. It interacts with most leading world bodies but under a pseudonym. Or as a guest/observer. Or in some other unofficial capacity. But despite the best efforts of Red China to either subsume or destroy it, Taiwan has secured its independent place in the world. The People’s Republic Of China (PRC) or Red China lays claim to it under its “One China” credo. America aided and abetted this assertion. First, the ROC lost its UN seat to the PRC in 1971. That was when Red China and America entered into an entente cordiale during the Nixon administration. This not only raised Red China gradually to become the manufacturer to the world but also the No.2 economic power after America itself. China now plans to topple America from its pinnacle. This quest was going well according to some analysts. But only till its infliction of the Wuhan Virus on the world changed everything. Meanwhile, Taiwan, after losing its UN seat to Red China saw the US sever diplomatic relations too in 1978. Then the US let its defence treaty to protect the ROC lapse in 1980 as well. But, all this is about to change in 2020. The US has announced it will reassess the status of not just Taiwan but a restive Hong Kong as well. This could well be followed by Tibet where the US has already questioned China’s handling of the Panchen Lama. Then will come the artificial islands and military bases on the South China Sea. The claims of territory in Bhutan, the various territorial claims and line of actual control (LAC) disputes with India. All this, in the context of acute sanctions placed on trade with China, capital flight, seizure of Chinese assets abroad, revocation of one-sided treaties and diplomatic loss of face everywhere. Meanwhile, the ROC keeps itself in a state of Israel-like military readiness for the ever-present existentialist threat. The size of its lean military tops half a million soldiers. It keeps most of its military machine underground, in reinforced facilities. Importantly, it is also a covert nuclear power, a status wheedled out of the US, a parting gift, to maintain the balance. Today, as the sun on the ROC’s flag is shining brightly once again, that balance will help Taiwan eventually resurrect mainland China from the tyranny of a Communist dictatorship. China helped America destroy the USSR via the Nixon-Kissinger- Mao alliance. Today, as the last bastion of totalitarian Communism, China too will be destroyed by America. Dr Sun Yat-Sen is secretly regarded by many Chinese as the true father of modern China. He was certainly an astute thinker. He famously let it be known that only 5 per cent of the people are capable of “Pre-seeing”, or visionary thinking. Another 10 per cent could promptly understand once they were told, the “Post-seeing”. But the bulk of people, 85 per cent of any populace, is “Unseeing”. They are incapable of understanding theoretical postulates. They must be instructed. Today, the world is ready to instruct and command a regime change in China. The wheels may grind slowly but they are sure to grind fine. The direction is set. It is now only a matter of time. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Dr Sun Yat-Sen will ride again

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a draft resolution which calls for 'impartial, independent and comprehensive' probe into the coronavirus pandemic. India is backing the demand for probe into COVID-19 pandemic.

India backs demand for probe into COVID-19 pandemic

World Health Organisation's World Health Assembly will be held on Monday virtually but China is blocking Taiwan's participation. Watch this video to know more.

Taiwan seeks observer status vote in W.H.A, China oposes

China has started easing restrictions, our report looks at how China's three big cities have changed in the post pandemic world.

Coronavirus Outbreak: Life in China in a post-pandemic world

New coronavirus poor stood in long queues, waiting to pick up bags of basic necessities, abruptly tipped into dependence on handouts by the pandemic.

Europe's unemployed stand in queues for handouts

An artwork by a dissident Chinese cartoonist depicting a coronavirus particle driving a tank towards a protester was unveiled in Copenhagen on Friday (May 15) in support of arrested Hong Kong demonstrators whose trial begins next week.

Art in support of Hong Kong protests in Denmark | COVID-19 Pandemic

This year streets of Baghdad are quiet during the holy month of Ramzan due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch this video to know more.

Iraq: Streets of Baghdad quiet during the holy month of Ramzan

Italy's luxury hotels sit empty for the first time in decades as the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the country's tourism and hospitality industries.

Italy's luxury hotels vacant due to COVID-19 pandemic

Italy's government on Saturday said that it would allow travel to and from abroad from June 3 as the country tries to turn the clock back on after one of the world's most rigid coronavirus lockdowns.

COVID-19 pandemic: Major milestone on Italy's road to recovery

Italians have been turning to pawn shops to swap their prized family jewellery for some much needed cash, as Italians look for alternative ways to survive financially as the coronavirus outbreak leaves many without an income.

Pawn shops in Italy see 30% surge in customers

Venezuelan migrants in Chile have been forced out onto the street, unable to work amid lockdown and unable to return home due to the region's shuttered borders.

Fineprint: Venezuelan migrants left homeless | COVID-19 Pandemic

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), some Western scientists sympathetic to China and the obsequious media have expended enormous efforts to convince the public that the COVID-19 pandemic is a naturally-occurring outbreak of disease.

Included in that effort are <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/asia/china-coronavirus-research-restrictions-intl-hnk/index.html">restrictions </a>imposed by the Chinese government on academic research related to the origins of COVID-19, in what is likely part of a wider attempt to control the narrative surrounding the origin of the pandemic.

There are now rumours swirling within the global scientific community that Western professional journals are submitting to pressure from Beijing and refusing to publish data that do not conform to the naturally-occurring interpretation of the origin of COVID-19.

The narrative promoted by the CCP is that COVID-19, while circulating in a bat population mutated, acquiring the ability to infect humans, which was then transmitted to people either visiting or working in the Wuhan Seafood Market.

First of all, it was already known by the end of January 2020, that the initial patients hospitalised between December 1-10, 2019 had <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext">not visited </a>the market and bats were <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079563/">not sold</a> there.

Despite the extraordinary propaganda campaign mounted by the Chinese government and its sycophants in the West, the origin of COVID-19 remains unknown and all of the structurally close bat coronaviruses so far identified to explain its origin have only raised more doubts.

In the February 3, 2020 Nature article, scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by Zheng-Li Shi, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079563/">claimed that</a> the coronavirus RaTG13, isolated from bats in Yunnan Province, China, showed a 96.2% sequence identity with COVID-19 and, therefore, “RaTG13 is the closest relative” of COVID-19 and forms a distinct lineage from other coronaviruses.

A month later on March 17, 2020, the article “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” widely-cited by scientists and the media, supported the conclusion that RaTG13 is CoVid-19’s closest relative, which likely “jumped” from animals to humans in the Wuhan Seafood Market.

It was later <a href="https://ccnationalsecurity.org/chinas-narrative-about-the-origin-of-covid-19-is-starting-to-unravel/">revealed that </a>RaTG13 only existed on paper and was actually a duplicate of another bat coronavirus, BtCoV/4991, about which very little experimental data have been published.

Nevertheless, if we use the RaTG13 sequence, which has provided the basis of China’s naturally-occurring theory for the origin of COVID-19, holes begin to appear in its argument.

COVID-19’s receptor binding domain, which allows the attachment of the virus to a human cell, is structurally closer in its amino acid sequence to that of pangolins (scaly anteaters) than to bat RaTG13. 
 
COVID-19 
 
N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C 
N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F Q P T N G V G Y Q P Y 
 
Pangolin

N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C 
N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F H P T N G V G Y Q P Y&nbsp;

RaTG13 
 
N S K H I D A K E G G N F N Y L Y R L F R K A N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S K P C 
N G Q T G L N C Y Y P L Y R Y G F Y P T D G V G H Q P Y &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

As you can see, the pangolin sequence differs from COVID-19 by only one amino acid, while RaTG13 differs in seventeen positions.

Within the receptor-binding domain there are fourteen specific amino acids that were previously <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048">shown</a> to be critical for coronaviruses to bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor that initiates the COVID-19 infection in humans.

At least two pangolin species match those critical COVID-19 amino acids in thirteen out of fourteen positions, whereas RaTG13 matches only seven out of fourteen and other bat coronaviruses do so to an even lesser extent.

Chinese scientists <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x">suggest </a>that the pangolin receptor binding domain was “donated” to COVID-19, presumably through some type of recombinant event occurring between a bat coronavirus and a pangolin coronavirus inside a pangolin host.

Their naturally-occurring explanation for the presence of a pangolin-like receptor binding domain is highly speculative and no evidence exists to support such a contention.

A far more likely scenario is that the native receptor binding domain within a bat coronavirus “backbone” was artificially replaced with one from a pangolin strain.

After that, came the insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site, found in COVID-19 and none of the close bat coronaviruses relatives yet identified and a distinctive feature is widely known for its ability to enhance <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832359/">pathogenicity</a> and<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-020-00212-7"> transmissibility</a> in coronaviruses.

There is additional information now being discussed on <a href="https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and-logic-behind-the-claim-that-the-wuhan-coronavirus-is-man-made#comments">virology blogs</a> indicating that COVID-19 is not naturally-occurring because its differential ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous substitution is vastly different compared to that which occurs in nature among bat populations as well as natural factors that would select against the presence of a furin polybasic cleavage site.

China’s ongoing propaganda campaign and its associated Western censorship will not stop honest scientific inquiry from discovering the true origin of COVID-19. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), some Western scientists sympathetic to China and the obsequious media have expended enormous efforts to convince the public that the COVID-19 pandemic is a naturally-occurring outbreak of disease.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), some Western scientists sympathetic to China and the obsequious media have expended enormous efforts to convince the public that the COVID-19 pandemic is a naturally-occurring outbreak of disease. Included in that effort are restrictions imposed by the Chinese government on academic research related to the origins of COVID-19, in what is likely part of a wider attempt to control the narrative surrounding the origin of the pandemic. There are now rumours swirling within the global scientific community that Western professional journals are submitting to pressure from Beijing and refusing to publish data that do not conform to the naturally-occurring interpretation of the origin of COVID-19. The narrative promoted by the CCP is that COVID-19, while circulating in a bat population mutated, acquiring the ability to infect humans, which was then transmitted to people either visiting or working in the Wuhan Seafood Market. First of all, it was already known by the end of January 2020, that the initial patients hospitalised between December 1-10, 2019 had not visited the market and bats were not sold there. Despite the extraordinary propaganda campaign mounted by the Chinese government and its sycophants in the West, the origin of COVID-19 remains unknown and all of the structurally close bat coronaviruses so far identified to explain its origin have only raised more doubts. In the February 3, 2020 Nature article, scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by Zheng-Li Shi, claimed that the coronavirus RaTG13, isolated from bats in Yunnan Province, China, showed a 96.2% sequence identity with COVID-19 and, therefore, “RaTG13 is the closest relative” of COVID-19 and forms a distinct lineage from other coronaviruses. A month later on March 17, 2020, the article “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” widely-cited by scientists and the media, supported the conclusion that RaTG13 is CoVid-19’s closest relative, which likely “jumped” from animals to humans in the Wuhan Seafood Market. It was later revealed that RaTG13 only existed on paper and was actually a duplicate of another bat coronavirus, BtCoV/4991, about which very little experimental data have been published. Nevertheless, if we use the RaTG13 sequence, which has provided the basis of China’s naturally-occurring theory for the origin of COVID-19, holes begin to appear in its argument. COVID-19’s receptor binding domain, which allows the attachment of the virus to a human cell, is structurally closer in its amino acid sequence to that of pangolins (scaly anteaters) than to bat RaTG13. COVID-19 N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F Q P T N G V G Y Q P Y Pangolin N S N N L D S K V G G N Y N Y L Y R L F R K S N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S T P C N G V E G F N C Y F P L Q S Y G F H P T N G V G Y Q P Y RaTG13 N S K H I D A K E G G N F N Y L Y R L F R K A N L K P F E R D I S T E I Y Q A G S K P C N G Q T G L N C Y Y P L Y R Y G F Y P T D G V G H Q P Y As you can see, the pangolin sequence differs from COVID-19 by only one amino acid, while RaTG13 differs in seventeen positions. Within the receptor-binding domain there are fourteen specific amino acids that were previously shown to be critical for coronaviruses to bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor that initiates the COVID-19 infection in humans. At least two pangolin species match those critical COVID-19 amino acids in thirteen out of fourteen positions, whereas RaTG13 matches only seven out of fourteen and other bat coronaviruses do so to an even lesser extent. Chinese scientists suggest that the pangolin receptor binding domain was “donated” to COVID-19, presumably through some type of recombinant event occurring between a bat coronavirus and a pangolin coronavirus inside a pangolin host. Their naturally-occurring explanation for the presence of a pangolin-like receptor binding domain is highly speculative and no evidence exists to support such a contention. A far more likely scenario is that the native receptor binding domain within a bat coronavirus “backbone” was artificially replaced with one from a pangolin strain. After that, came the insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site, found in COVID-19 and none of the close bat coronaviruses relatives yet identified and a distinctive feature is widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility in coronaviruses. There is additional information now being discussed on virology blogs indicating that COVID-19 is not naturally-occurring because its differential ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous substitution is vastly different compared to that which occurs in nature among bat populations as well as natural factors that would select against the presence of a furin polybasic cleavage site. China’s ongoing propaganda campaign and its associated Western censorship will not stop honest scientific inquiry from discovering the true origin of COVID-19. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Explained: Scientific indications that show COVID-19 is man-made

US Senator Thom Tillis presented an 18-point plan. The plan aims at using the help of regional allies to hold the Chinese government accountable for its “lies, deception, and cover-ups” that led to the global COVID-19 pandemic. This plan also includes enhancing military ties with India.

WION Dispatch: US unveils plan to hold China accountable for COVID-19 outbreak

After 600 years of painstakingly slow evolution, Britain's parliament took a leap into the future when the coronavirus pandemic struck, transforming its deeply traditional debating chamber into a modern videoconferencing hub.

UK's 600-year-old parliament's digital makeover

International order has been historically referenced with the event that brought about a major change in the same; be it a post-Westphalian international structure, a post-World War order or a post-Cold War era. With a pandemic of this magnitude that has brought even developed economies to their knees, the international order will certainly take a new shape post-COVID19. A key takeaway is going to be the reorientation of global supply chains along the lines of economic nationalism.&nbsp;

The fight of major Asian economies like South Korea, Japan, India, as well as, China against COVID-19 has caused immense damage to both life and livelihood, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stating that for the first time in almost 60 years, Asian economies will see “zero growth” in 2020. This was not the Asian Century that had been imagined; a realm of economic prosperity, connectivity and shifting of the global power stage to Asia with Asian powers at important tables had been the reality under which the 21st Century was to operate. At the regional level, a post-COVID-19 economic and political Asian trajectory is concurrently emerging. How likely is economic nationalism to shape the future of post-COVID-19 Asia? &nbsp;

Addressing supply chain conundrums&nbsp;

A major change in a post-COVID Asia, if not the world, is going to be a rise in and increased thrust by administrations on economic nationalism. Prolonged focus on extended and specialised global supply chains is going to be discouraged; extreme over-reliance of global supply chains on China, be it in sectors of pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, electronics or automobiles, has become alarmingly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. &nbsp;

An extended emphasis on economic nationalism has been on the rise since the 2008 financial crisis-era; however, economic liberalism and globalisation continued to hold the larger sway, supported by Bretton Woods institutions. The coronavirus pandemic and its effect on national economies can prove to be the very thrust needed for economic nationalism to become the policy implemented by major economies. China, for its part, has been largely critical of Bretton Woods institutes like the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, earning itself the tag of a “revisionist” power by the US in its 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defence Strategy while in 2019, the US Treasury labelled China a ‘currency manipulator’. However, China’s miraculous rise to a global economic power has been a result of perks it enjoyed due to the US-led liberal economic order. Hence, while China has tried to Asianise or lead by offering an alternate platform to existing Bretton Woods institutions, as seen in the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) or its attempts to increase its voting power base in the IMF, it has hoped for continuation of globalisation trends that aid its economic growth. For China, a manufacturing giant and trading hub, economic nationalism imbibed by Asian nations is going to result in loss of its regional dominance and serve as a major fallback to its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).&nbsp;

A report by Dun and Bradstreet claims that globally, over 51,000 companies have direct while 5 million companies have one or two-ties suppliers in China. Examples of economic nationalism being exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis can be seen already. For instance, Japan, for whom China is its largest trading partner, has announced that USD 2.2 million from its huge coronavirus stimulus package will be dedicated to solely encourage its manufacturers to shift their businesses out of China, preferably into Japan itself or to other neighbouring countries. Economic nationalism has already taken a front seat in US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy which has led to the withdrawal of US support from multilateral trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Further, while citing that it was responsible for “mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus”, Trump recently suspended US funding from the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had come under rebuke by the US for its pro-China dealings. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to keep India out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2019 is also remnant of its economic nationalism interests while the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (EU) has been interpreted as London making a strong case for national economics a priority over globalisation.&nbsp;

Economic nationalism takes a lead&nbsp;

Economic nationalism, unlike economic liberalism, will prove to be a zero-sum game. It will allow nations to benefit at the expense of other countries or groups; it threatens the positive sum-game interdependency a globalised international order has thrived on. Beijing has followed a dual policy of implementing economic nationalism in its own national initiatives (case in point, the BRI which follows a debt-trap, unilateral, state-run policy of functioning) while benefitting from the economic liberal order that trade institutions and multilateral initiatives have created (BRI does indeed fulfil, albeit at the questionable expense, the infrastructure and connectivity needs of developing nations). &nbsp;

Economic nationalism is hence not new in China; it has varied forms of management and aggressiveness under Xi Jinping’s Communist Capitalism lead. What is emerging as a disturbing trend is the emergence of economic nationalism as a core foreign policy tool among countries like Japan, India and South Korea as well. These are critical top trading partners of China and this trend is likely to severely damage its supply chain networks. &nbsp;

Implementation of economic nationalism in a pre-coronavirus world could have worked in favour of China; theoretically, the concept threatens Bretton Woods institutions and rules-based trading, as championed by the US and its alliance and close strategic partners. It ultimately promotes a national-interest oriented and non-intermediary form of trade that does not necessarily follow international norms but rather bilateral settlements. It would have ultimately supported China’s BRI objectives, as it has done in the past with Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka and BRI’s extensive Pakistan associations threatening Indian sovereignty. &nbsp;

Economic nationalism in pre-COVID era worked in Chinese favour because while Beijing followed its national interest-driven economic plans, it also actively engaged in institutions like the WTO, IMF, UN, AIIB and New Development Bank (NDB) while spearheading agreements like RCEP. This allowed it to present a global leader narrative, enunciating inclusion in the erstwhile Westernised world order, while becoming the world’s production center. China’s global might and political power stems from its economic prowess. However, in a post-COVID 19 order, economic nationalisation will strengthen ‘Make in’ self-territory initiatives and also lead to shifting from single-source supply chains. Ultimately, the pandemic is only going to strengthen trends that have been already in the play of moving away from China-centric supply sources.&nbsp;

While economic nationalism is at the core of competing foreign policy outlooks, it has been harder to implement the same due to the heavily ingrained globalization framework modern trade has been built around. However, the resurgence of economic nationalism must be studied in the context of the emergence of an environment that has become increasingly unfavourable towards economic integration. Take for example India’s decision to not join RCEP; it came in light of intense domestic pressure, with the agrarian sector and political affiliate parties of Modi’s Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) citing disapproval with the FTA. Similarly, public disapproval and pushback against the TPP as well as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), even with their net economic benefits, lead to US withdrawal from the same. &nbsp;

Even though globalisation is here to stay and will not be completely done away with, a largely localised manner of globalisation with national interests at its core is highly likely to be implemented. This trend, which has seen a reflection in Japan’s post coronavirus manufacturing withdrawal from China, goes to show that thrust in economic nationalism and protectionism in brewing and could possibly have the potential to bring massive changes to the existing global economic and trade system.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

International order has been historically referenced with the event that brought about a major change in the same; be it a post-Westphalian international structure, a post-World War order or a post-Cold War era.

International order has been historically referenced with the event that brought about a major change in the same; be it a post-Westphalian international structure, a post-World War order or a post-Cold War era. With a pandemic of this magnitude that has brought even developed economies to their knees, the international order will certainly take a new shape post-COVID19. A key takeaway is going to be the reorientation of global supply chains along the lines of economic nationalism. The fight of major Asian economies like South Korea, Japan, India, as well as, China against COVID-19 has caused immense damage to both life and livelihood, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stating that for the first time in almost 60 years, Asian economies will see “zero growth” in 2020. This was not the Asian Century that had been imagined; a realm of economic prosperity, connectivity and shifting of the global power stage to Asia with Asian powers at important tables had been the reality under which the 21st Century was to operate. At the regional level, a post-COVID-19 economic and political Asian trajectory is concurrently emerging. How likely is economic nationalism to shape the future of post-COVID-19 Asia? Addressing supply chain conundrums A major change in a post-COVID Asia, if not the world, is going to be a rise in and increased thrust by administrations on economic nationalism. Prolonged focus on extended and specialised global supply chains is going to be discouraged; extreme over-reliance of global supply chains on China, be it in sectors of pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, electronics or automobiles, has become alarmingly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. An extended emphasis on economic nationalism has been on the rise since the 2008 financial crisis-era; however, economic liberalism and globalisation continued to hold the larger sway, supported by Bretton Woods institutions. The coronavirus pandemic and its effect on national economies can prove to be the very thrust needed for economic nationalism to become the policy implemented by major economies. China, for its part, has been largely critical of Bretton Woods institutes like the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, earning itself the tag of a “revisionist” power by the US in its 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defence Strategy while in 2019, the US Treasury labelled China a ‘currency manipulator’. However, China’s miraculous rise to a global economic power has been a result of perks it enjoyed due to the US-led liberal economic order. Hence, while China has tried to Asianise or lead by offering an alternate platform to existing Bretton Woods institutions, as seen in the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) or its attempts to increase its voting power base in the IMF, it has hoped for continuation of globalisation trends that aid its economic growth. For China, a manufacturing giant and trading hub, economic nationalism imbibed by Asian nations is going to result in loss of its regional dominance and serve as a major fallback to its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A report by Dun and Bradstreet claims that globally, over 51,000 companies have direct while 5 million companies have one or two-ties suppliers in China. Examples of economic nationalism being exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis can be seen already. For instance, Japan, for whom China is its largest trading partner, has announced that USD 2.2 million from its huge coronavirus stimulus package will be dedicated to solely encourage its manufacturers to shift their businesses out of China, preferably into Japan itself or to other neighbouring countries. Economic nationalism has already taken a front seat in US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy which has led to the withdrawal of US support from multilateral trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Further, while citing that it was responsible for “mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus”, Trump recently suspended US funding from the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had come under rebuke by the US for its pro-China dealings. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to keep India out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2019 is also remnant of its economic nationalism interests while the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (EU) has been interpreted as London making a strong case for national economics a priority over globalisation. Economic nationalism takes a lead Economic nationalism, unlike economic liberalism, will prove to be a zero-sum game. It will allow nations to benefit at the expense of other countries or groups; it threatens the positive sum-game interdependency a globalised international order has thrived on. Beijing has followed a dual policy of implementing economic nationalism in its own national initiatives (case in point, the BRI which follows a debt-trap, unilateral, state-run policy of functioning) while benefitting from the economic liberal order that trade institutions and multilateral initiatives have created (BRI does indeed fulfil, albeit at the questionable expense, the infrastructure and connectivity needs of developing nations). Economic nationalism is hence not new in China; it has varied forms of management and aggressiveness under Xi Jinping’s Communist Capitalism lead. What is emerging as a disturbing trend is the emergence of economic nationalism as a core foreign policy tool among countries like Japan, India and South Korea as well. These are critical top trading partners of China and this trend is likely to severely damage its supply chain networks. Implementation of economic nationalism in a pre-coronavirus world could have worked in favour of China; theoretically, the concept threatens Bretton Woods institutions and rules-based trading, as championed by the US and its alliance and close strategic partners. It ultimately promotes a national-interest oriented and non-intermediary form of trade that does not necessarily follow international norms but rather bilateral settlements. It would have ultimately supported China’s BRI objectives, as it has done in the past with Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka and BRI’s extensive Pakistan associations threatening Indian sovereignty. Economic nationalism in pre-COVID era worked in Chinese favour because while Beijing followed its national interest-driven economic plans, it also actively engaged in institutions like the WTO, IMF, UN, AIIB and New Development Bank (NDB) while spearheading agreements like RCEP. This allowed it to present a global leader narrative, enunciating inclusion in the erstwhile Westernised world order, while becoming the world’s production center. China’s global might and political power stems from its economic prowess. However, in a post-COVID 19 order, economic nationalisation will strengthen ‘Make in’ self-territory initiatives and also lead to shifting from single-source supply chains. Ultimately, the pandemic is only going to strengthen trends that have been already in the play of moving away from China-centric supply sources. While economic nationalism is at the core of competing foreign policy outlooks, it has been harder to implement the same due to the heavily ingrained globalization framework modern trade has been built around. However, the resurgence of economic nationalism must be studied in the context of the emergence of an environment that has become increasingly unfavourable towards economic integration. Take for example India’s decision to not join RCEP; it came in light of intense domestic pressure, with the agrarian sector and political affiliate parties of Modi’s Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) citing disapproval with the FTA. Similarly, public disapproval and pushback against the TPP as well as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), even with their net economic benefits, lead to US withdrawal from the same. Even though globalisation is here to stay and will not be completely done away with, a largely localised manner of globalisation with national interests at its core is highly likely to be implemented. This trend, which has seen a reflection in Japan’s post coronavirus manufacturing withdrawal from China, goes to show that thrust in economic nationalism and protectionism in brewing and could possibly have the potential to bring massive changes to the existing global economic and trade system. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Economic nationalism takes a lead in post-COVID-19 Asia

Restaurants, cafes and bars in Australia's most populous state reopened on Friday after a two-month shutdown under coronavirus lockdown measures, boosting the federal government's bid to get people back in work and the economy back on track.

Australian government gives states green light to reopen | COVID-19 Pandemic

There is significant drop in new COVID-19 cases in Germany. Germany will start to relax some border controls introduced in March to slow the spread of the coronavirus with the aim of having free travel in Europe from mid-June. The tentative step, aimed partly at helping the tourism sector, comes as the European Commission prepares to urge a return to "unrestricted free movement", though that push will stop if there is a major second wave of infections. In partnership with DW News, we bring to you ground report from Berlin, Germany.

Significant drop in new COVID-19 cases in Germany | WION-DW Partnership

Antarctica is still coronavirus-free, scientists are taking necessary precautions to keep the same. All tourists trips to Antarctica have been cancelled.

Antarctica remains coronavirus-free, scientists take necessary precautions

The travel industry has borne the brunt of the damage wrought by lockdowns to contain the novel coronavirus as nations have sealed borders and planes have been grounded.

While some expect the COVID-19 shock to last around year, the lasting <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lanka-to-target-high-spending-tourists-to-revive-tourism-297463">impact on travel</a> is unclear.

The UN forecasts&nbsp;that the world economy will shrink by 3.2 per cent this year, the sharpest contraction since the 1930s Great Depression.

However, as the realisation dawns that the world will have to learn to live with the virus, governments are keen on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/global-governments-banking-on-tourism-for-economic-revival-298732">kickstarting tourism </a>for economic revival.

European Union&nbsp;is planning to salvage the summer tourist season and is asking member nations to throw open their borders. It has called for&nbsp;unrestricted movement across member states,&nbsp;albeit with safety measures, such as face masks on aeroplanes and social distancing. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/explained-coronavirus-impact-on-the-tourism-industry-277803">Also read:&nbsp;Explained - Coronavirus impact on the tourism industry</a>

The tourism sector accounts for about 10 per cent of the BLOC's economy.&nbsp;Europe’s museums, beaches and plazas have been virtually empty since mid-March under a near-blanket travel halt that has destroyed jobs, pulverised the airline and hospitality sectors and undermined Europe’s cherished principle of free movement in a bid to contain the virus.

Austria and Germany are planning&nbsp;to fully reopen their border on June 15. That will particularly help Austria’s tourism industry, which relies heavily on German visitors. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that the aim is to eliminate border controls from June 15 across the Schengen region.

Furthermore, governments are working on individual plans too. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have opened their borders to one another, creating a coronavirus "travel bubble".&nbsp;This is the first "travel bubble" in Europe since nations began shutting their borders earlier this year in response to the coronavirus pandemic. 
 
India too is keen to restart tourism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi while referring to tourism said that he saw the potential for domestic tourism "but we need to think of the contours of the same".

He&nbsp;said, "We can now focus our strategy in this battle against coronavirus, as should be the case. We have a twofold challenge –- to reduce the transmission rate of the disease, and to increase public activity gradually, while adhering to all the guidelines. We will have to work towards achieving both these objectives."

Social-distance travel

Under the European Commission’s proposals, airlines and airports would insist passengers wear masks and reorganise check-ins, dropoffs and luggage pickups to avoid crowds. 
 
The Brussels-based Commission also wants vouchers for cancelled flights or holidays to be valid for at least a year, with protection against bankruptcies, so people would accept them instead of demanding refunds from cash-strapped airlines and travel firms.

It said people should be able to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants or go to beaches - though it stressed the situation would have to be monitored to prevent a new surge in infections. 
 
(With inputs from Reuters)

The travel industry has borne the brunt of the damage wrought by lockdowns to contain the novel coronavirus as nations have sealed borders and planes have been grounded.

The travel industry has borne the brunt of the damage wrought by lockdowns to contain the novel coronavirus as nations have sealed borders and planes have been grounded. While some expect the COVID-19 shock to last around year, the lasting impact on travel is unclear. The UN forecasts that the world economy will shrink by 3.2 per cent this year, the sharpest contraction since the 1930s Great Depression. However, as the realisation dawns that the world will have to learn to live with the virus, governments are keen on kickstarting tourism for economic revival. European Union is planning to salvage the summer tourist season and is asking member nations to throw open their borders. It has called for unrestricted movement across member states, albeit with safety measures, such as face masks on aeroplanes and social distancing. Also read: Explained - Coronavirus impact on the tourism industry The tourism sector accounts for about 10 per cent of the BLOC's economy. Europe’s museums, beaches and plazas have been virtually empty since mid-March under a near-blanket travel halt that has destroyed jobs, pulverised the airline and hospitality sectors and undermined Europe’s cherished principle of free movement in a bid to contain the virus. Austria and Germany are planning to fully reopen their border on June 15. That will particularly help Austria’s tourism industry, which relies heavily on German visitors. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that the aim is to eliminate border controls from June 15 across the Schengen region. Furthermore, governments are working on individual plans too. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have opened their borders to one another, creating a coronavirus "travel bubble". This is the first "travel bubble" in Europe since nations began shutting their borders earlier this year in response to the coronavirus pandemic. India too is keen to restart tourism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi while referring to tourism said that he saw the potential for domestic tourism "but we need to think of the contours of the same". He said, "We can now focus our strategy in this battle against coronavirus, as should be the case. We have a twofold challenge –- to reduce the transmission rate of the disease, and to increase public activity gradually, while adhering to all the guidelines. We will have to work towards achieving both these objectives." Social-distance travel Under the European Commission’s proposals, airlines and airports would insist passengers wear masks and reorganise check-ins, dropoffs and luggage pickups to avoid crowds. The Brussels-based Commission also wants vouchers for cancelled flights or holidays to be valid for at least a year, with protection against bankruptcies, so people would accept them instead of demanding refunds from cash-strapped airlines and travel firms. It said people should be able to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants or go to beaches - though it stressed the situation would have to be monitored to prevent a new surge in infections. (With inputs from Reuters)

What's the importance of tourism to the world's economy?

Is big pharma putting profits before lives? WION's Palki tells you how soaring drug prices could keep future coronavirus treatments out of the hands of the mass population.

Coronavirus: Big pharma putting profits before lives? | Gravitas

In the United Kingdom, drones have been deployed to provide medical supplies to remote areas. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has decided to enforce a 24-hour curfew during the 5-day Eid holidays. WION's Executive Editor Palki Sharma Upadhyay gets you the big global developments for Wednesday.

Gravitas: Coronavirus: Top 10 global developments for May 13

The Japanese government aims to build a society without physical constraints by giving people access to avatars or remote-controlled robots. WION's Executive Editor Palki Sharma Upadhyay gets you a report.

Gravitas: Japan eyes robotic society by 2050

covid-19

Covid 19, News on Covid 19, stories on Covid 19, articles on Covid 19, Covid 19 stories at Wion, Covid 19 news, Covid 19 latest news

covid 19