Category: Corona Virus

COVID-19 is a new strain of coronavirus that has not been previously identified in humans. The COVID-19 is the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, Hubei province, China.

Since December 2019, cases have been identified in a growing number of countries. The Districts surveillance data can be found here.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause illnessranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

Public health authorities are learning more every day. We will continue to update as we learn more.

Reported illnesses have ranged frommild symptoms to severe illnessand death for confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases.

Symptoms may appear2-14 days after exposure:

The symptoms that are currently being seen with COVID-19 are cough, fever, headache, new loss of taste or smell, repeated shaking with chills, sore throat, shortness of breath, and muscle pain.To help prevent the spread of germs, you should:

You play an important role in stopping the spread of germs, view resources to share with your family, friends and within your community.

Some people are at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID-19, including older adults and people who have serious chronic medical conditions. If you are in this higher-risk population, the CDC recommends that you:

Learn more at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/high-risk-complications.html

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has information on how to prepare your home and family for COVID-19. Recommendations include:

If you are the family member or caregiver of someone at higher risk, you should:

Everyone can do their part to help us respond to this emerging public health threat:

If you are a healthcare provider, be on the look-out for:

If you are a healthcare provider or a public health responder caring for a COVID-19 patient, please take care of yourself and follow recommendedinfection control procedures.

If you are a close contact of someone with COVID-19 and develop symptoms of COVID-19, call your healthcare provider and tell them about your symptoms and your exposure.

If you are a resident in a community where person-to-person spread of COVID-19 has been detected and you develop COVID-19 symptoms, call your healthcare provider and tell them about your symptoms.

For people who are ill with COVID-19, but are not sick enough to be hospitalized, please followCDC guidance on how to reduce the risk of spreading your illness to others. People who are mildly ill with COVID-19 are able to isolate at home during their illness.

If you have been in China or another affected area or have been exposed to someone sick with COVID-19 in the last 14 days, you will facesome limitations on your movement and activityfor up to 14 days. Please follow instructions during this time. Your cooperation is integral to the ongoing public health response to try to slow spread of this virus.

Learn more on the CDC website.

Read this article:

What Is COVID-19? | coronavirus

Europe had nearly 50 percent more deaths than normal at the peak of the outbreak, according to data compiled by Britains and Frances national statistics agencies, with tens of thousands more people dying the last week of March and the first week of April than in previous years.

As Europe became the center of the pandemic in the late winter and early spring, many countries implemented nationwide lockdowns, which was already killing thousands. Most of the excess deaths were in four big, hard-hit countries Britain, Italy, Spain and France.

In their worst weeks, Belgium, England, France and Spain all had more than twice as many deaths than was usual for the time of year.

England had the second-highest peak mortality after Spain in Europe, and the longest continuous period of excess mortality, according to a report published by Britains Office for National Statistics on Wednesday. Britain had registered over 55,000 confirmed deaths as of mid-July, and is the worst-hit country in Europe.

Although European countries encountered wide discrepancies in their excess deaths, most saw a rise over the course of two deadly weeks, from March 30 to April 12. During the last week of March, the deadliest across Europe with 33,000 excess deaths, Spain alone registered over 12,500 more deaths than would be expected when compared with data from 2016 to 2019, a 155 percent increase, and Italy over 6,500, according to data provided by the French national statistics agency, INSEE. The following week, Belgium recorded over 2,000 excess deaths, an increase of nearly 110 percent compared with data from previous years.

The virus has depleted nursing homes across the continent, infected thousands of health care workers, and revealed how some of the most stable countries in the world were unprepared for a pandemic, although several national security agencies had defined it as one of the most critical threats that their countries could face.

See the original post:

Fauci to Testify Before Congress on Coronavirus Response - The New York Times

It isn't clear how many cases have been linked to "The Gym" in California, but county health officials say an outbreak is considered three or more cases from different households stemming from a specific location.

"The Gym" did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.

The Pacific Beach gym remained open despite an order to close indoor operations to prevent the spread of the virus. The business was sent a letter July 23 and told to close immediately, but it didn't shut until days later on July 27, county health officials say.

According to San Diego Health Officer Wilma Wooten, any business or entity that violates the order faces a misdemeanor and a fine of $1,000.

County officials say they need to step up contact tracing efforts and crack down on egregious violators. They've issued multiple letters to local businesses, including gyms and restaurants.

Fitness centers have struggled with how to keep clients safe while working out indoors.

"We will continue to take every necessary precaution to ensure the safety of our community, and we have taken a number of steps across all of our locations, which include enhanced cleanliness and sanitization policies and procedures, extensive training for staff, physical distancing measures, reducing physical touch points in the club with touchless check-in, and more," according to statement from McCall Gosselin, senior vice president of communications for Planet Fitness.

Read more here:

San Diego gym that defied a shutdown order linked to a coronavirus outbreak - CNN

But before aerosols can get far, they must travel through the air thats near: meaning that they are a hazard at close range, too. And all the more so because, just like the smoke from a cigarette, aerosols are most concentrated near the infected person (or smoker) and become diluted in the air as they drift away.

A peer-reviewed study by scientists at the University of Hong Kong and Zhejiang University, in Hangzhou, China, published in the journal Building and Environment in June concluded, The smaller the exhaled droplets, the more important the short-range airborne route.

So what does this all mean exactly, practically?

Can you walk into an empty room and contract the virus if an infected person, now gone, was there before you? Perhaps, but probably only if the room is small and stuffy.

Can the virus waft up and down buildings via air ducts or pipes? Maybe, though that hasnt been established.

More likely, the research suggests, aerosols matter in extremely mundane scenarios.

Consider the case of a restaurant in Guangzhou, southern China, at the beginning of the year, in which one diner infected with SARS-CoV-2 at one table spread the virus to a total of nine people seated at their table and two other tables.

Yuguo Li, a professor of engineering at the University of Hong Kong, and colleagues analyzed video footage from the restaurant and in a preprint (not peer reviewed) published in April found no evidence of close contact between the diners.

Droplets cant account for transmission in this case, at least not among the people at the tables other than the infected persons: The droplets would have fallen to the floor before reaching those tables.

View original post here:

Yes, the Coronavirus Is in the Air - The New York Times

Need to stay updated on coronavirus news in Texas? Our evening roundup will help you stay on top of the days latest updates. Sign up here.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, has tested positive for the new coronavirus, he said in an interview with East Texas Now where he speculated that he may have caught the virus from wearing his mask.

Gohmert, who spends ample time on the U.S. House floor without a mask, was one of several Texas officials scheduled to fly to West Texas this afternoon with President Donald Trump. He took one test, which tested positive, then took a second test during a pre-screen at the White House which also tested positive.

I cant help but wonder ... if I injected the virus into my mask when I was moving, he said in an interview.

Medical experts and doctors overwhelmingly recommend wearing masks as a way to reduce spread of COVID-19. Recent research suggests that masks could protect the wearer from severe symptoms of COVID-19 or from catching the virus entirely.

Gohmert, 66, was one of several lawmakers who participated in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee that also took place Tuesday. He walked around the hearing room and outside without wearing a mask. News of his diagnosis was first reported by Politico and later confirmed by ABC News.

Im fine. I feel fine. Totally asymptomatic, he said. If I hadnt been going with the president, since I dont feel badly, I would never have known.

Gohmert said he received guidance from the doctors at the White House and the attending physician at the Capitol that he only needed to self-quarantine for 10 days. He said he will drive back to his East Texas home and that his staff is all getting tested for the virus.

Like Dorothy said, theres no place like home, Gohmert said.

According to CNN, U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, was seated next to Gohmert on a flight from Texas on Sunday evening. She is also self-quarantining, according to her office.

The Republican lawmaker has been known for speaking at length with Capitol colleagues while not adhering to social distancing guidelines. Last month, he told CNN that he was not wearing a mask because he was getting tested regularly for the virus.

I dont have the coronavirus, turns out as of yesterday Ive never had it, he said in June. But if I get it, youll never see me without a mask.

Gohmert also raised eyebrows in March after returning to the Capitol despite potential exposure to the virus at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Though he said at the time he was cleared by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention physician to resume Capitol business, other lawmakers who attended the conference, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, opted to self-quarantine.

Several other members of Congress have tested positive for the deadly respiratory virus. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul tested positive for the virus in March and later recovered. Florida Republican Reps. Neal Dunn and Mario Diaz-Balart have also contracted the virus.

Texas, however, has recently become a hotspot for the coronavirus, with the state having some of the highest case counts in the nation. The governor previously issued a statewide mask mandate.

In a tweet Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, who chaired Tuesdays hearing, wished Gohmert a full & speedy recovery.

When individuals refuse to take the necessary precautions it puts everyone at risk, he wrote. Ive regularly instructed all Members to wear their masks and hope this is a lesson by all my colleagues.

Disclosure: Politico has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

View original post here:

Louie Gohmert tests positive for coronavirus - The Texas Tribune

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to rage around the world, some of the largest outbreaks are in countries that fall into one particular economic category. They're not rich. They're not poor. They're middle income.

In fact, of the countries reporting the most cases globally, 6 of 7 are middle-income nations.

And they're not just any middle-income countries. They're some of the most influential players in the global south. Brazil, India, Mexico, Peru, Russia and South Africa are not only major emerging market economies, they're regional political powers.

Middle-income countries are defined by the World Bank as having annual per capita income between $1,000 and $12,000. The U.S., by comparison (the one high-income country in the top 7), has an average annual income of $66,000.

In mid-July, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called the pandemic the "gravest crisis in the history of our democracy" as he reimposed strict lockdown measures.

South Africa has now reported nearly a half-million cases of the coronavirus. Health officials project cases to continue to rise at least into September. And the impact of the pandemic goes far beyond the number of sick or dead. South Africa's borders remain closed. Nonessential workplaces remain shut. The country's official unemployment rate, which had been in the mid-20% range, was pushed above 30% by the pandemic.

Indeed, the strain on countries in the middle-income category is tremendous. And the number of people affected is huge. According to the World Bank, 75% of the world's population live in middle-income countries.

Collectively over the past decade, these countries have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Amanda Glassman, the executive vice president of the Center for Global Development, says these countries have a lot to lose in this pandemic.

"Most of their populations in this group would fall back into poverty given a shock like this one," she says.

For instance, Brazil's economy is expected to shrink by as much as 6.5% this year because of the coronavirus crisis. Brazil has the second-highest number of cases after the U.S. Nearly 100,000 people have died. The president and several of his top ministers have been infected. And as the pandemic continues to spread, more and more Brazilians are losing work.

"Even a country like Brazil that was so wealthy, 90% of the country earned less than $10 a day," Glassman says.

"I'm worried that we're setting back the process of economic and social development that has gone so quickly over the past decade," she says. "And it will take us many years to catch back up."

The entrepreneurial spirit that made countries like India, Brazil and South Africa dynamic emerging markets also put them at greater risk of having large outbreaks. These are places with a lot of "hustle," as Glassman puts it. Their economies were global. Business travelers and tourists jetted in and out. They have decent domestic transportation networks offering the coronavirus or other pathogens easy avenues to spread. They have health systems capable of detecting the disease.

"In India, for example, they're doing a lot of testing," says Jonathon Keymer, an intelligence analyst at the global risk management firm WorldAware. "In Russia, they're doing a lot of testing. The more people you test, the more confirmed cases you're going to have."

Keymer specializes in Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries for WorldAware and has also been modeling the impact of COVID-19 in these nations.

He says some middle-income countries globally look worse than others in this pandemic simply because they are open, dynamic societies and their case numbers are being reported. But that's not true everywhere.

He points out that both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, two middle-income former Soviet states, have reintroduced nationwide lockdowns in the past couple of weeks despite reported case numbers remaining relatively low.

"And then in Turkmenistan, which is a much more difficult place to get information about, they've closed the borders and I don't think they've officially got a single case of COVID," Keymer says. "But you can bet your bottom dollar that they've got COVID."

The World Health Organization has raised alarms about Turkmenistan despite its continued insistence that it has no cases.

But on paper at least Turkmenistan looks like it has far less of a COVID-19 problem than Peru, which has tested aggressively and openly reported results. Peru has a testing rate of roughly 70,000 tests per 1 million people a rate more than five times the global average.

Tanzania is another middle-income country reporting remarkably few infections. The east African nation actually hasn't officially reported any cases to WHO since April, when the president declared that the virus had been driven out of his country by prayer.

Even with the marked differences in middle income countries everything from governance to public sentiment to economic structure there are certain commonalities. It is clear that middle-income countries face similar risks as wealthier nations for coronavirus outbreaks but have far fewer resources to deal with them.

Interestingly, the relative wealth of a middle-income country appears to have little to do with how many infections it has.

Deborah Barros Leal Farias, a lecturer at the University of New South Wales, says the experience of middle-income countries shows that a nation's economic status doesn't determine its success in battling this pandemic. "If you take the U.S., the U.K. and Sweden, they are also having horrible numbers," Farias says. "And then you can take a country like Vietnam or Thailand and they're having phenomenal numbers."

She says the real issue in keeping case counts down even more than resources appears to be leadership.

Of the four countries with the most cases globally the U.S. and three middle-income nations: Brazil, India and Russia all have right-wing leaders who espouse populist or anti-science views.

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro downplayed the seriousness of the disease as tens of thousands of Brazilians died from COVID. Even when he tested positive for it himself, Bolsonaro continued to tout the anti-malarial drug hydrochloroquine as a cure despite studies showing it wasn't effective against the virus.

Ester Sabino, a virologist at the University of Sao Paulo, says Brazil never had a cohesive national plan for how to address the outbreak and she says Bolsonaro has been a distraction.

"In April and May, the main discussion [in Brazil] was whether we should or should not use chloroquine instead of saying how do we stop this," Sabino says. "There was not a good plan. That's my opinion. A lot of time was spent on things that were not the key things for the control of the disease."

Research by Sabino and her colleagues shows there were more than 100 different introductions of the virus into Brazil in the early days of the pandemic, mostly from travelers who had been in Europe. Then the virus spread to every corner of the vast country.

Lockdowns managed to slow the initial explosive spread, but Sabino says there needs to be more focus to contain the ongoing outbreak.

"There is no magic. There is no free lunch. If you want to control epidemic, it's hard," she says. "And you have to work a lot. We can't think about politics."

And that appears to hold true regardless of whether a country is rich, poor or somewhere in the middle.

Continued here:

Up-And-Coming Countries Have Some Of The Largest Outbreaks Of COVID-19 : Goats and Soda - NPR

Congress has approved roughly $2.5 trillion since March to rescue an economy battered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

And it doesn't look like it will be nearlyenough.

Lawmakers are working on a fifth round of stimulus relief that could dwarf the four previous rounds of assistance combined.

The Democratic-led House has passed the HEROES Act, a roughly$3.4 trillion bill that would provide a second round of direct payments to millions of Americans, provide nearly $1 trillion to revenue-strapped states and local governments, and provide billions forhousing and food assistance.

The Republican-controlled Senate has introduced its counter-proposal, the HEALS Act, a $1.1 trillion package that also includes direct payments but no federal aid for housing, food or state and local governments. It has yet to pass the chamber.

'These 2 bills arent mateable': Republicans, Democrats at odds on a coronavirus stimulus deal as pressure builds

Here are some of the key similarities and differences between the two proposals.

The Democratic bill proposes extending the currentbenefit of $600 per week(which ends July 31) through December, a federal bonus on top of what states pay. The Republican plan proposes cutting that amount to $200 through September and then limiting the maximum benefit (state and federal combined) to 70% of an applicants pay moving forward.

Both bills would provide another stimulus check to millions of Americans under the same rules as the CARES Act: $1,200 for individuals earning up to $75,000 (phasing out at $99,000); and $2,400 for married couples earning up to $150,000 (phasing out at $198,000). The Democratic bill would be more generous for dependents ($1,200 for each dependent up to three versus $500 for each dependent in the GOP bill).

Democrats propose nearly$1 trillion in direct aid to help states, counties and cities whose budgets have been decimated by the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. The Republican bill has no such aidthough it does provide states and local governments more flexibility in how they use aid provided in earlier stimulus bills.

The Democrats' proposalprovides roughly $200 billion in housing assistance to help renters and homeowners affected by coronavirus avoid eviction/foreclosure. The GOP bill includesno such aid.

The Democrats provide about $60 billion to reopen schools, compared to $70 billion in the GOP bill. Each also provides about $30 billion to assist colleges.But the Democratic bill says thenearly $1 trillion in aid for stateand local governments could be usedfor education as well. The GOP bill does not and says that a portion of the education aid must go to help private schools reopen as well.

Democrats are proposing roughly $380 billion on ways to combat the coronavirus.Most of that would beused on two priorities: $100 billion to reimbursehospitals and other health care providers for pandemic-related costs, and $98 billion to assist laid-off workers pay for the health coverage they lost because of the economic steps taken to control the pandemic. The Republican plan sets aside$111 billion, much of it to help federal agencies and private companies develop vaccines and therapeutic remedies ($50 billion) or to help medical providers cover costs ($25 billion).

Senate Republicans release info on $1 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package

The new GOP plan includes another check for Americans and continued help for the unemployed.

USA TODAY

There's a big gulf on COVID-19 testing and contact tracing as well with Democrats proposing $75 billion and Republicans $16 billion.

The Democrats provide $290 billion in business assistance but largely in tax credits to companies that keep employees on the payroll and in tax breaks for pandemic-related expenses. The Democraticplan also includes a number of other priorities, including $190 billion in "hazard pay" for essential workers nationwide, $35 billion for food assistance to poor families, and $3.6 billion to help states run their elections in November. The GOP proposal does not include money for those but it does provide $158 billion in grants and loans to help small businesses stay afloat.

More:

$1,200 checks? Money for schools? Breaking down what Republicans and Democrats want in the coronavirus stimulus plan - USA TODAY

This analysis focuses on Americans views of China on topics including how the country has handled the coronavirus pandemic, the state of bilateral relations and attitudes about the country more broadly. Pew Research Center has been tracking attitudes toward China since 2005. This report also includes demographic analysis comparing groups with different levels of education, age and political leanings.

For this report, we used data from a nationally representative survey of 1,003 U.S. adults conducted by telephone from June 16 to July 14, 2020.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses and survey methodology.

Americans views of China have continued to sour, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Today, 73% of U.S. adults say they have an unfavorable view of the country, up 26 percentage points since 2018. Since March alone, negative views of China have increased 7 points, and there is a widespread sense that China mishandled the initial outbreak and subsequent spread of COVID-19.

Around two-thirds of Americans (64%) say China has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. Around three-quarters (78%) place a great deal or fair amount of the blame for the global spread of the coronavirus on the Chinese governments initial handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan.

Faith in President Xi Jinping to do the right thing in world affairs has also deteriorated: 77% have little or no confidence in him, up 6 percentage points since March and 27 points since last year.

More generally, Americans see Sino-U.S. relations in bleak terms. Around seven-in-ten (68%) say current economic ties between the superpowers are in bad shape up 15 percentage points since May 2019, a time in the trade war when tariffs were ramping up. Around one-in-four (26%) also describe China as an enemy of the United States almost double the share who said this when the question was last asked in 2012. Another 57% say China is a competitor of the U.S., while 16% describe it as a partner.

As the U.S. imposes sanctions on Chinese companies and officials over Beijings treatment of Uighurs and other minority groups after originally resisting these actions the American public appears poised to support a tough stance. Around three-quarters (73%) say the U.S. should try to promote human rights in China, even if it harms bilateral economic relations, while 23% say the U.S. should prioritize strengthening economic relations with China at the expense of confronting China on human rights issues.

More Americans also think the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the outbreak of the coronavirus (50%) than think this should be overlooked in order to maintain strong bilateral economic ties (38%). But, when asked about economic and trade policy toward China, Americans are slightly more likely to prefer pursuing a strong economic relationship (51%) to getting tough on China (46%). Still, more support getting tough on China now than said the same in 2019, when 35% held that view.

While more Americans say the U.S. is the worlds leading economy (52%) than say the same of China (32%), views of U.S. economic superiority declined 7 percentage points over the past four months. And those who see China as economically dominant are less likely to support getting tough on China economically, instead prioritizing building a strong relationship with China on economic issues. They are also less likely to say the U.S. should hold China responsible for its role in the pandemic at the expense of the bilateral economic relationship.

These are among the findings of a new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 16 to July 14, 2020, among 1,003 adults in the United States. The survey also finds that while Republicans and Democrats both have negative views of China and are critical of Beijings handling of the coronavirus, this criticism is more prevalent among Republicans. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are significantly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to have a very unfavorable view of China, to criticize the Chinese governments role in the global pandemic and to want to take a tougher policy approach to the country. (For more on partisan differences in views on China, see Republicans see China more negatively than Democrats, even as criticism rises in both parties.)

Around three-quarters (73%) of Americans have an unfavorable view of China today the most negative reading in the 15 years that Pew Research Center has been measuring these views. This July survey also marks the third survey over the past two years in which unfavorable views of China have reached historic highs. Negative views have increased by 7 percentage points over the last four months alone and have shot up 26 points since 2018.

The percent who say they have a very unfavorable view of China is also at a record high of 42%, having nearly doubled since the spring of 2019, when 23% said the same.

Negative views of China are consistent across education levels. Around seven-in-ten of those who have completed at least a college degree and those who have less schooling voice this opinion. Men and women also differ little in their views of China.

While majorities of every age group now have an unfavorable view of China, Americans ages 50 and older are substantially more negative (81%) than those ages 30 to 49 (71%) or those under 30 (56%). For those ages 50 and older, this represents an increase of 10 percentage points since March.

As has been the case for much of the last 15 years, Republicans continue to hold more unfavorable views of China than Democrats, 83% vs. 68%, respectively. Republicans are also much more likely to say they have a very unfavorable view of China (54%) than Democrats (35%).

In the past four months, negative views toward China among Republicans have increased 11 percentage points. Over the same period of time, unfavorable views among Democrats have increased 6 points, resulting in a 15 point gap between the parties.

Americans are highly critical of the way China has handled the coronavirus outbreak. Around two-thirds (64%) say China has done a bad job, including 43% who say it has done a very bad job. (When a slightly different question was administered online in April and May, 63% of Americans said China was doing only a fair or a poor job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, including 37% who said it was doing a poor job.)

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are significantly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say China has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus: 82% vs. 54%, respectively. And they are about twice as likely to think China has done a very bad job (61% vs. 30%). Older people, too, are more critical, with 73% of those ages 50 and older finding fault in Chinas pandemic response, compared with 59% of those 30 to 49 and 54% of those under 30. But education has little relationship to how people think China has handled the novel coronavirus: Around two-thirds of those with and without a college degree say China has not done well in its response.

Around three-quarters of Americans say the Chinese governments initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan contributed either a great deal (51%) or a fair amount (27%) to the global spread of the virus. Republicans are particularly critical: 73% believe Chinas early handling of the pandemic contributed a great deal to its spread, compared with 38% of Democrats who say the same. Older people, too, are especially likely to lay the blame on China.

Half of Americans think the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the outbreak of the coronavirus, even if it means worsening economic relations, while 38% think the U.S. should prioritize strong U.S.-China relations, even if it means overlooking any role China played in the outbreak. (The 8% of adults who say the Chinese governments initial handling of the virus is not at all to blame for the global spread of the virus were not asked this foll0w-up question, while 5% expressed no opinion, either to the first or second question.) Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP are about twice as likely (71%) as Democrats and Democratic leaners (37%) to say the U.S. should hold China responsible even at the expense of worse economic relations.

Those who think China has done a poor job handling the outbreak or who fault its role in the viruss global spread are significantly more likely to have negative views of the country. For example, 85% of those who say China had done a poor job handling the COVID-19 pandemic have an unfavorable view of the country, compared with 53% among those who think its doing a good job dealing with the outbreak.

When it comes to the bilateral economic relationship, Americans, by a more than two-to-one margin, say economic ties are bad (68%) rather than good (30%). And a quarter say economic relations are very bad.

While more than half thought economic ties were bad in the spring of 2019, when the question was last posed, this sense has increased by 15 percentage points over the past year. These shifts are visible across the political spectrum. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who were split nearly evenly last year, a majority (63%) now believe bilateral economic ties are bad, a 15-point increase. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have also become more negative roughly three-quarters (73%) say ties are bad, up 12 points from a year prior.

And Americans have mixed preferences on how to best shape economic and trade policies with China. Around half say it is more important to build a stronger relationship with China, while 46% place more value on getting tougher with China. In the past year, the share endorsing a tougher stance with China on economic and trade policy has grown by 11 percentage points.

Republicans and Democrats have both shifted their views over the past year in favor of getting tougher on China on economics and trade. Today, roughly two-thirds of Republicans support this position, 12 points higher than in 2019. Democrats, for their part, are 14 points more likely this year to favor getting tough on China, though only a third pick this option over building relations.

In recent months the Chinese government has come under fire on several human rights fronts, including a new national security law in Hong Kong, mass surveillance and detention of ethnic Muslim Uighurs, drastic responses to the coronavirus and mistreatment of Africans in the country.

When asked whether the U.S. should prioritize economic relations with China or promote human rights in China, nearly three-quarters of Americans choose human rights, even if it harms economic relations with China.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to emphasize human rights over economic gain, though at least seven-in-ten of both groups hold this opinion. Younger and older Americans alike prefer more emphasis on human rights than economic relations when it comes to China. Less than a quarter of all age groups say the U.S. should prioritize economic relations with China, even if it means not addressing human rights issues.

When asked if they see China as a competitor, enemy or partner, a majority of Americans say they see the country as a competitor (57%). This is a significant decline from last time the question was asked in 2012, when 66% said the same. The share of Americans who consider China an enemy has increased by 11 percentage points over the same period, from 15% to 26%. The proportion of Americans who see China as a partner has remained steady at 16%.

The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who see China as an enemy has increased 21 percentage points since the question was last asked in 2012. In comparison, there has been an 8 percentage point increase among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, widening the gap between the two parties.

Perceptions of Chinas relationship with the U.S. differ by age. While roughly a quarter of those ages 18 to 29 see China as a partner, only 6% of those 50 and older say the same. Conversely, older Americans are nearly three times as likely as their younger counterparts to see China as an enemy (36% vs. 13%). Americans of all age groups are equally likely to see China as a competitor.

Americans who see Chinas initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak as at least somewhat responsible for the global pandemic are more likely to see China as an enemy.

Since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic in March, the U.S. unemployment rate has skyrocketed, and the International Monetary Fund predicts the U.S. gross domestic product will shrink in 2020, while the Chinese economy will achieve positive growth. The American publics economic confidence has also declined. While 52% of Americans still see their country as the worlds leading economic power, this is down from 59% in March, an unprecedented high in Pew Research Centers surveys on this question.

The share of Americans who see China as the worlds top economy continues to hold steady at about a third (32%). No more than one-in-ten name either Japan or the European Union as the worlds leading economy (5% and 6%, respectively).

American men are significantly more likely than women to see the U.S. as the worlds top economy. But there are few differences in opinion across different age groups or education levels.

While Republicans views on this question have mostly held steady over the past four months, Democrats have become significantly less likely to see the U.S. as the leading global economy: 54% of Democrats held this opinion in March, compared with 44% today.

When asked how much confidence they have in Chinese President Xi Jinping to do the right thing regarding world affairs, about three-quarters of Americans say they have not too much confidence or no confidence at all (77%). And, for the first time since the question was first asked in 2014, a majority (55%) now say they have no confidence at all in the Chinese president. This is a 10-point increase from March and more than double the share who said so last year.

The low confidence in President Xi is tied to concerns over how China has handled the coronavirus pandemic. Americans who say the Chinese government has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak are significantly more likely to have no confidence in Xi (64%) than those who say it has done a good job (39%). The same is also true for those who blame China for the global spread of the virus.

As Xi and Trump discuss execution of the Phase 1 trade agreement, signed in January, Americans views of the bilateral economic relationship also are associated with their opinion of Xi. Those who think Sino-U.S. economic relations are bad are significantly more likely to have no confidence in him (61%) than those who think relations are good (44%).

Americans ages 50 and older are about 20 percentage points more likely than their younger counterparts to have no confidence at all in Xi (62% vs. 40%). And a partisan divide in evaluations of Xi has reemerged. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are now 10 points more likely than their Democratic counterparts to have no confidence at all in Xi. In comparison, partisans were equally likely to lack confidence in the Chinese leader in March, as well as in 2019 and 2018.

View original post here:

Americans Fault China for Its Role in the Spread of COVID-19 - Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have risen to more than 17.3 million around the world, according to Johns Hopkins University of Medicine. The number of confirmed deaths now stands at more than 673,000.

Preliminary data shows the French economy contracted by 13.8% in the second quarter. Household consumption, company investment and trade were all hit by the nationwide lockdown.

Social distancing has pushed flu infection rates to record lows, according to early figures. The data suggests measures to tackle coronavirus are having an impact on other communicable diseases.

The UK has tightened lockdowns in some Northern areas, including Greater Manchester. The move is targeted at areas where transmission rates are increasing.

Florida and Arizona have both reported record increases in COVID-19 deaths. The US epicentre is also showing signs of shifting to the Midwest.

Global cases have gone past 17 million.

Image: Our World in Data

The crisis threatens to "destroy the livelihoods" of the region's 218 million informal workers, said a policy brief released yesterday. This puts decades of poverty reduction at risk.

Remittances from Southeast Asians working abroad are set to fall by 13% - or $10 billion - while the regional economy is expected to contract by 0.4% this year.

Governments should boost social welfare payments and prioritize higher health spending, said Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, head of the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

The first global pandemic in more than 100 years, COVID-19 has spread throughout the world at an unprecedented speed. At the time of writing, 4.5 million cases have been confirmed and more than 300,000 people have died due to the virus.

As countries seek to recover, some of the more long-term economic, business, environmental, societal and technological challenges and opportunities are just beginning to become visible.

To help all stakeholders communities, governments, businesses and individuals understand the emerging risks and follow-on effects generated by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the World Economic Forum, in collaboration with Marsh and McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group, has launched its COVID-19 Risks Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications - a companion for decision-makers, building on the Forums annual Global Risks Report.

The report reveals that the economic impact of COVID-19 is dominating companies risks perceptions.

Companies are invited to join the Forums work to help manage the identified emerging risks of COVID-19 across industries to shape a better future. Read the full COVID-19 Risks Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications report here, and our impact story with further information.

A Reuters poll of over 500 economists suggests the outlook for the global economy has grown more pessimistic.

The still-rising number of infections and the risk of fresh lockdowns is putting any potential rebound at risk.

We expect the economic reality of the virus to start catching up with businesses across the globe soon, said Jan Lambregts, global head financial markets research at Rabobank.

What we need is a vaccine or significant breakthroughs in medicines to decisively reopen our economies and restore business and consumer confidence but there is no magic wand for the time being.

The poll expects the global economy to shrink by 4% this year - down from the 3.7% forecast in June.

Read the original here:

COVID-19: What you need to know about the coronavirus pandemic on 31 July - World Economic Forum

The scale of the coronavirus pandemic and the economic shutdowns it caused set in motion a series of debates and questions about what the world may look like once its stranglehold on society loosens: Will we travel less? Will we work at home more? Will norms in schools and at large-scale public events be changed for years?

Less noticed, but just as important, is the potential that the coronavirus could be a catalyst to overhaul the global economic order. A debate on the failures of the global economy had already started before the pandemic, born of a sense that capitalism and corporations had become parasites on the planet.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, the worlds rich countries should do more than just wait for corporations to change. They have to overhaul their monetary policies, the forms of private investment they incentivize and the attitudes of their antitrust enforcement.

Until now, monetary policy has rewarded holders of financial assets over those who have stock in real assets like land, factories and labor. Thats because the worlds most powerful central banks have prioritized controlling inflation over expanding industrial capacity and employment in whats called the real economy.

This status quo in central banking, which has been dominant for four decades, has encouraged corporations, especially the largest publicly traded companies, to focus on short-term financial gains and share prices at the expense of pursuing longer-term investments that would reap more broadly shared rewards. Compounding the gains of those who already own plenty of capital has resulted in the entrenched income inequality and stagnant wages that citizens in dozens of countries bemoan.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve is expected to operate under its dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stabilize prices (by limiting inflation). However, while central banks like the Fed have explicit inflation targets typically aiming to keep the rate at 2 percent they do not have explicit unemployment targets.

The Fed, could instead put new policies in place that make a very low unemployment rate or more aggressively, underemployment rate the new trigger for whether it decides to stimulate or hit the financial breaks on the economy. This shift would avert the risk of depressing wages and be helpful to groups in the work force who are discriminated against and often first fired, last hired. And crucially, it would reward companies for longer-term investments that promote real economic growth.

How else can the financial markets be encouraged to prioritize real, productive investment? Governments can begin to issue higher taxes on dividend payments to large shareholders of big, publicly traded companies and pair that with tax reductions on long-term investments.

Its not surprising that investors who for years looked at a landscape of sluggish-to-moderate global growth have been looking for quick financial returns rather than productive, but sometimes risky, long-term investments. Guided by shareholder demands, for the past decade businesses have focused on delivering returns quickly and predictably to investors instead of investing in longer-horizon infrastructures like research, plants and machinery that would ultimately lead to innovation and drive economic growth.

According to a 2019 report, American Investment in the 21st Century, led by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, net private domestic investment in fixed assets like equipment, machinery and property has shrunk in half since the mid-1980s.

Higher taxes on large dividend payments and federal subsidies for long-term investments could help America reverse course.

We also need to address concentration of corporate power. To overhaul the prevailing global economic architecture, the globes leading governments will need to address the fact that many sectors airlines, banking, technology have become oligopolies dominated by just a few multinational corporations. These Gilded Age style markets reduce competition and concentrate the pricing power of large, well-connected corporations.

There have been calls to break up technology companies or to limit their scale and monopolistic tendencies. However, dozens of national regulators are pitted against global corporations that can use their multiple bases to evade rules inconvenient to them. So international regulatory cooperation will be needed to rein in the increasingly unfettered power of these multinational behemoths.

At a time when many governments seem steered by nationalism, effective cross-border cooperation is hard to imagine. However, feats of global cooperation from the past like the post-World War II establishment of the Bretton Woods systems new world order offer examples of leaders eventually meeting the moment even amid formidable challenges.

The pandemic is not just giving us a chance to rethink how to best live and work. It is also providing an opportunity to reconsider the way that the very structures of our world economy operate.

Dr. Moyo is an economist and the author of How the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly and the Stark Choices that Lie Ahead.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the rest here:

3 Post-Coronavirus Economic Reforms to Make the World Better - The New York Times