are

Re: David Oliver: Let’s not forget care homes when covid-19 is over - What should we expect from care homes after Covid-19?




are

Transparency and independence in the vetting and recommendation of vaccine products




are

Babies with microcephaly in Brazil are struggling to access care




are

US adults are more likely to have poor health than those in 10 similar countries, survey finds




are

The dynamics of dissent: when actions are louder than words

2 May 2019 , Volume 95, Number 3

In the latest issue a collection of articles explore how international norms are increasingly contested by both state and non-state actors.

Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken

A profusion of international norms influences state behaviour. Ambiguities and tensions in the normative framework can give rise to contestation. While research on norm contestation has focused on open debates about norms, we identify a second type of norm contestation where norms are contested through particular forms of implementation. We therefore distinguish between contestation through words and actions, that is, discursive and behavioural contestation. Discursive contestation involves debates about the meaning and/or (relative) importance of norms. Behavioural contestation, by contrast, eschews such debates. Instead, different norm understandings become apparent in the different ways in which actors shape the implementation of norms. Despite being a potentially powerful mechanism of challenging and changing norms, behavioural contestation has fallen outside the purview of the literature in part because it frequently remains below the radar. The two forms of contestation overlap when the practices of behavioural contestation are brought to the attention of and discussed by the international community. Thus, discursive and behavioural contestation are not mutually exclusive but can happen at the same time, sequentially or independently of each other. This introduction to a special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs, on ‘The dynamics of dissent’, develops the concept of behavioural contestation and outlines triggers and effects of this hitherto under-researched expression of dissent.




are

The rule of law and maritime security: understanding lawfare in the South China Sea

4 September 2019 , Volume 95, Number 5

Douglas Guilfoyle

Does the rule of law matter to maritime security? One way into the question is to examine whether states show a discursive commitment that maritime security practices must comply with international law. International law thus provides tools for argument for or against the validity of certain practices. The proposition is thus not only that international law matters to maritime security, but legal argument does too. In this article, these claims will be explored in relation to the South China Sea dispute. The dispute involves Chinese claims to enjoy special rights within the ‘nine-dash line’ on official maps which appears to lay claim to much of the South China Sea. Within this area sovereignty remains disputed over numerous islands and other maritime features. Many of the claimant states have engaged in island-building activities, although none on the scale of China. Ideas matter in such contests, affecting perceptions of reality and of what is possible. International law provides one such set of ideas. Law may be a useful tool in consolidating gains or defeating a rival's claims. For China, law is a key domain in which it is seeking to consolidate control over the South China Sea. The article places the relevant Chinese legal arguments in the context of China's historic engagement with the law of the sea. It argues that the flaw in China's approach has been to underestimate the extent to which it impinges on other states' national interests in the maritime domain, interests they conceptualize in legal terms.




are

Legal Provision for Crisis Preparedness: Foresight not Hindsight

21 April 2020

Dr Patricia Lewis

Research Director, Conflict, Science & Transformation; Director, International Security Programme
COVID-19 is proving to be a grave threat to humanity. But this is not a one-off, there will be future crises, and we can be better prepared to mitigate them.

2020-04-21-Nurse-COVID-Test

Examining a patient while testing for COVID-19 at the Velocity Urgent Care in Woodbridge, Virginia. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

A controversial debate during COVID-19 is the state of readiness within governments and health systems for a pandemic, with lines of the debate drawn on the issues of testing provision, personal protective equipment (PPE), and the speed of decision-making.

President Macron in a speech to the nation admitted French medical workers did not have enough PPE and that mistakes had been made: ‘Were we prepared for this crisis? We have to say that no, we weren’t, but we have to admit our errors … and we will learn from this’.

In reality few governments were fully prepared. In years to come, all will ask: ‘how could we have been better prepared, what did we do wrong, and what can we learn?’. But after every crisis, governments ask these same questions.

Most countries have put in place national risk assessments and established processes and systems to monitor and stress-test crisis-preparedness. So why have some countries been seemingly better prepared?

Comparing different approaches

Some have had more time and been able to watch the spread of the disease and learn from those countries that had it first. Others have taken their own routes, and there will be much to learn from comparing these different approaches in the longer run.

Governments in Asia have been strongly influenced by the experience of the SARS epidemic in 2002-3 and - South Korea in particular - the MERS-CoV outbreak in 2015 which was the largest outside the Middle East. Several carried out preparatory work in terms of risk assessment, preparedness measures and resilience planning for a wide range of threats.

Case Study of Preparedness: South Korea

By 2007, South Korea had established the Division of Public Health Crisis Response in Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and, in 2016, the KCDC Center for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response had established a round-the-clock Emergency Operations Center with rapid response teams.

KCDC is responsible for the distribution of antiviral stockpiles to 16 cities and provinces that are required by law to hold and manage antiviral stockpiles.

And, at the international level, there are frameworks for preparedness for pandemics. The International Health Regulations (IHR) - adopted at the 2005 World Health Assembly and binding on member states - require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the World Health Organization (WHO) and ‘prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade’.

Under IHR, governments committed to a programme of building core capacities including coordination, surveillance, response and preparedness. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk highlights disaster preparedness for effective response as one of its main purposes and has already incorporated these measures into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other Agenda 2030 initiatives. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said COVID-19 ‘poses a significant threat to the maintenance of international peace and security’ and that ‘a signal of unity and resolve from the Council would count for a lot at this anxious time’.

Case Study of Preparedness: United States

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) established PERRC – the Preparedness for Emergency Response Research Centers - as a requirement of the 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which required research to ‘improve federal, state, local, and tribal public health preparedness and response systems’.

The 2006 Act has since been supplanted by the 2019 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act. This created the post of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) and authorised the development and acquisitions of medical countermeasures and a quadrennial National Health Security Strategy.

The 2019 Act also set in place a number of measures including the requirement for the US government to re-evaluate several important metrics of the Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement and the Hospital Preparedness Program, and a requirement for a report on the states of preparedness and response in US healthcare facilities.

This pandemic looks set to continue to be a grave threat to humanity. But there will also be future pandemics – whether another type of coronavirus or a new influenza virus – and our species will be threatened again, we just don’t know when.

Other disasters too will befall us – we already see the impacts of climate change arriving on our doorsteps characterised by increased numbers and intensity of floods, hurricanes, fires, crop failure and other manifestations of a warming, increasingly turbulent atmosphere and we will continue to suffer major volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis. All high impact, unknown probability events.

Preparedness for an unknown future is expensive and requires a great deal of effort for events that may not happen within the preparers’ lifetimes. It is hard to imagine now, but people will forget this crisis, and revert to their imagined projections of the future where crises don’t occur, and progress follows progress. But history shows us otherwise.

Preparations for future crises always fall prey to financial cuts and austerity measures in lean times unless there is a mechanism to prevent that. Cost-benefit analyses will understandably tend to prioritise the urgent over the long-term. So governments should put in place legislation – or strengthen existing legislation – now to ensure their countries are as prepared as possible for whatever crisis is coming.

Such a legal requirement would require governments to report back to parliament every year on the state of their national preparations detailing such measures as:

  • The exact levels of stocks of essential materials (including medical equipment)
  • The ability of hospitals to cope with large influx of patients
  • How many drills, exercises and simulations had been organised – and their findings
  • What was being done to implement lessons learned & improve preparedness

In addition, further actions should be taken:

  • Parliamentary committees such as the UK Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy should scrutinise the government’s readiness for the potential threats outlined in the National Risk register for Civil Emergencies in-depth on an annual basis.
  • Parliamentarians, including ministers, with responsibility for national security and resilience should participate in drills, table-top exercises and simulations to see for themselves the problems inherent with dealing with crises.
  • All governments should have a minister (or equivalent) with the sole responsibility for national crisis preparedness and resilience. The Minister would be empowered to liaise internationally and coordinate local responses such as local resilience groups.
  • There should be ring-fenced budget lines in annual budgets specifically for preparedness and resilience measures, annually reported on and assessed by parliaments as part of the due diligence process.

And at the international level:

  • The UN Security Council should establish a Crisis Preparedness Committee to bolster the ability of United Nations Member States to respond to international crisis such as pandemics, within their borders and across regions. The Committee would function in a similar fashion as the Counter Terrorism Committee that was established following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
  • States should present reports on their level of preparedness to the UN Security Council. The Crisis Preparedness Committee could establish a group of experts who would conduct expert assessments of each member state’s risks and preparedness and facilitate technical assistance as required.
  • Regional bodies such as the OSCE, ASEAN and ARF, the AU, the OAS, the PIF etc could also request national reports on crisis preparedness for discussion and cooperation at the regional level.

COVID-19 has been referred to as the 9/11 of crisis preparedness and response. Just as that shocking terrorist attack shifted the world and created a series of measures to address terrorism, we now recognise our security frameworks need far more emphasis on being prepared and being resilient. Whatever has been done in the past, it is clear that was nowhere near enough and that has to change.

Case Study of Preparedness: The UK

The National Risk Register was first published in 2008 as part of the undertakings laid out in the National Security Strategy (the UK also published the Biological Security Strategy in July 2018). Now entitled the National Risk Register for Civil Emergencies it has been updated regularly to analyse the risks of major emergencies that could affect the UK in the next five years and provide resilience advice and guidance.

The latest edition - produced in 2017 when the UK had a Minister for Government Resilience and Efficiency - placed the risk of a pandemic influenza in the ‘highly likely and most severe’ category. It stood out from all the other identified risks, whereas an emerging disease (such as COVID-19) was identified as ‘highly likely but with moderate impact’.

However, much preparatory work for an influenza pandemic is the same as for COVID-19, particularly in prepositioning large stocks of PPE, readiness within large hospitals, and the creation of new hospitals and facilities.

One key issue is that the 2017 NHS Operating Framework for Managing the Response to Pandemic Influenza was dependent on pre-positioned ’just in case’ stockpiles of PPE. But as it became clear the PPE stocks were not adequate for the pandemic, it was reported that recommendations about the stockpile by NERVTAG (the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group which advises the government on the threat posed by new and emerging respiratory viruses) had been subjected to an ‘economic assessment’ and decisions reversed on, for example, eye protection.

The UK chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies, when speaking at the World Health Organization about Operation Cygnus – a 2016 three-day exercise on a flu pandemic in the UK – reportedly said the UK was not ready for a severe flu attack and ‘a lot of things need improving’.

Aware of the significance of the situation, the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy launched an inquiry in 2019 on ‘Biosecurity and human health: preparing for emerging infectious diseases and bioweapons’ which intended to coordinate a cross-government approach to biosecurity threats. But the inquiry had to postpone its oral hearings scheduled for late October 2019 and, because of the general election in December 2019, the committee was obliged to close the inquiry.




are

Virtual Roundtable: Where in the World Are We Headed?

Research Event

12 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm
Add to Calendar
Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman, Director, Center for Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School; US Under Secretary of State for Political  Affairs, 2011 – 2015.
Lord Kim Darroch, Crossbench Life Peer, House of Lords; British Ambassador to the US, 2016 – 19
Chair: Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Director, US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House
The outbreak of COVID-19 has disrupted world affairs at a time when US global leadership was already a cause of grave concern for many longstanding US partners.  While the US and China have recently signed the first phase of a trade agreement, the pandemic is leading to heightened tension between these two major powers.  Domestically, the virus has upended the health and economic security of many Americans during a crucial election year, and also raised genuine concern about the ability to hold a free and fair election. How will the US government navigate this unprecedented crisis and what does this mean for the future of US leadership? 
 
This event is part of the US and Americas Programme Inaugural Virtual Roundtable Series on the US and the State of the World and will take place virtually only. 

US and Americas Programme

Department/project




are

Diabetes Core Update: Covid-19 and Diabetes – Considerations for Health Care Professionals - April 2019

Diabetes Core Update: Covid-19 and Diabetes – Considerations for Health Care Professionals - April 2019

This special issue is an audio version of the American Diabetes Associations Covid-19 leadership team discussing a range of issues on Covid-19 and Diabetes.

Recorded March 31, 2020.

Topics include:

  1. Access to medications
  2. Effect on Diabetes Self-management
  3. Can Patients take their own Supplies if they are an inpatient in the hospital – particularly insulin pumps and CGM
  4. Considerations for Specific Hypoglycemic Medications during Inpatient Hospitalization
  5. Differences in Management for Persons with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes
  6. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists use During Covid-19 Infection
  7. Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease during Covid-19
  8. ACEs and ARBs
  9. Stress among Healthcare Professionals

Intended for practicing physicians and health care professionals, Diabetes Core Update discusses how the latest research and information published in journals of the American Diabetes Association are relevant to clinical practice and can be applied in a treatment setting.

Presented by:

Robert Eckel, MD
ADA President, Medicine & Science
University of Colorado

Mary de Groot, PhD
ADA President, Health Care & Education
Indiana University

Irl Hirsch, MD
University of Washington

Anne Peters, MD
University of Southern California    

Louis Philipson, MD, PhD
ADA Past President, Medicine & Science
University of Chicago

Neil Skolnik, MD
Abington Jefferson Health




are

Stroke: “striking reductions” are seen in number of people with symptoms seeking help




are

Free Employee Review Template and Software

All organizations need simple and effective employee reviews with 360 degree options. Teamphoria completely replaces paper and spreadsheet based employee reviews Template and Software.



  • Computer and Technology

are

Covid-19: GPs have a fortnight to start organising weekly care home reviews, says NHS




are

Covid-19: UK advisory panel members are revealed after experts set up new group




are

Covid-19: Woman with terminal cancer should be released from care home to die with family, says judge




are

Cow’s milk allergy guidelines are not evidence based and are beset by conflicts of interest, researchers warn




are

Covid-19: Trump says added deaths are necessary price for reopening US businesses




are

Covid-19: Health needs of sex workers are being sidelined, warn agencies




are

Med Treatments India | Medical Tourism in India | Healthcare India

Med Treatments India offers one stop solution for medical healthcare services and most affordable treatments facility with best hospitals & alternative treatments in India.



  • Sports and Health

are

Zelenskyy Finds That There Are No Easy Solutions in Donbas

23 October 2019

Duncan Allan

Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Leo Litra

Senior Research Fellow, New Europe Center
The president has attempted to use the so-called Steinmeier Formula to find a compromise on holding elections in the east of Ukraine. But he has run into a stark reality: Moscow and Kyiv’s interests remain irreconcilable.

2019-10-23-Ukraine.jpg

A banner reading 'No capitulation!' is unfurled above the entrance to the city hall in Kyiv as part of protests against implementation of the so-called Steinmeier Formula. Photo: Getty Images.

In 2016, the then-German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, suggested a way around the impasse in east Ukraine.

He proposed that elections in the areas held by Russian-backed insurgents – the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (DNR) and the ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’ (LNR) –   could be held under Ukrainian legislation, with Kyiv adopting a temporary law on ‘special status’, the main disagreement between Russia and Ukraine in the Minsk Agreements. This law would become permanent once the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had declared that elections correspond with OSCE standards.

The reaction in Ukraine was strongly negative. The so-called Steinmeier Formula contradicted Kyiv’s position that elections in the occupied Donbas should only go ahead in a secure environment – requiring the prior withdrawal of Russian forces and the return of the eastern border to Ukraine’s control. It also did not address the differing views of ‘special status’; Russia demands a much greater devolution of constitutional powers to the DNR and LNR regimes than Ukraine will grant.

But on 1 October, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the new Ukrainian president, announced that he was signing up to the Steinmeier Formula. He also announced a conditional withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from two frontline areas in the east.

Quick reversal

During the 2019 presidential election campaign, Zelenskyy repeatedly promised that, if elected, he would re-energize efforts to end the war. This appealed to many Ukrainians, who understandably want the conflict over, although Zelenskyy’s eventual electoral victory was largely won on domestic issues.

But his initiative quickly ran into two problems.

First, following a major prisoner swap in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to judge that Zelenskyy was in a hurry to deliver his election promises and was acting without consulting France and Germany. Russia had earlier demanded that Ukraine formally agree to elections in the Donbas as the precondition for a summit of the ‘Normandy’ powers (the diplomatic format comprising leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, which has not met since 2016).

Moreover, the US, which is not part of the ‘Normandy’ group, has seemed disengaged because of domestic controversies. Concluding that Zelenskyy was vulnerable, the Kremlin welcomed his announcement about the Steinmeier Formula but declined to assent to a summit, hoping to extract further concessions.

Second, Zelenskyy’s action triggered protests in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. Critics feared that he intended to make unilateral concessions over ‘special status’. Though he tried to assure Ukrainians that ‘there won't be any elections there if the [Russian] troops are still there’, concerns were fuelled by what many saw as his lack of openness about what the Steinmeier Formula really meant. Ukrainian public opinion wants an end to the war, but apparently not at any price.

Zelenskyy duly rowed back. During a marathon 14-hour press conference on 10 October, he emphasized that he would not surrender Ukraine’s vital interests. He also acknowledged that he had been insufficiently open with the Ukrainian public. For the time being at least, he seems to have been given pause.

A situation resistant to compromise

Instead, Zelenskyy may now attempt to ‘freeze’ the conflict by ending active operations. This is not Ukraine’s favoured outcome but could be the most realistic one in current conditions.  

Russia still calculates that time is on its side. It believes that Western support for Ukraine is lukewarm and that Kyiv will eventually have to give it what it wants. Russia clearly felt no pressure to respond positively to Zelenskyy’s overture, which it probably read as a weakness to be exploited.    

For these reasons, Zelenskyy now appears less optimistic that rapid progress to end the war is possible. A new summit of the ‘Normandy’ powers may happen but looks unlikely in the near future. This may act as an incentive for further bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, such as those which delivered the prisoner swap. However, a diplomatic process managed by Zelenskyy and Putin alone risks reducing Ukraine’s leverage. 

Finally, the main obstacles to implementation of the Minsk Agreements – radically different views of elections in, and ‘special status’ for, the DNR and LNR – remain. The Kremlin’s versions of both would gravely limit Ukraine’s sovereignty; Kyiv’s would facilitate the re-establishment of its control over the east. It is hard to see how this gap can be bridged.

Tellingly, the Steinmeier Formula offers no answer to this conundrum. Some conflicts, it seems, are resistant to diplomatic compromises that aim to satisfy everyone equally.




are

Webinar: Crimea – Ukraine's Lawfare vs Russia's Warfare

Members Event Webinar

16 March 2020 - 6:00pm to 7:00pm

Online

Event participants

Wayne Jordash QC, Managing Partner, Global Rights Compliance
Anton Korynevych, Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine for Crimea 
Chair: Orysia Lutsevych, Research Fellow and Manager, Ukraine Forum, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014. Despite Russia’s interpretation of its rights to the peninsula, international law and the international community, including the UN General Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, regard Crimea as occupied and do not recognize any changes to its status. Against this backdrop, Ukraine has attempted to hold Russia accountable for the annexation through the international courts. 

The panellists assess the effectiveness of Ukraine’s reliance on lawfare as a means of holding Russia accountable for its alleged wrongs. What is the role of the International Criminal Court in addressing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Russia in the occupied peninsula? Were lengthy International Court of Justice proceedings, for example on the narrow issue of alleged racial discrimination in Crimea, worth launching? What further institutional and legislative reforms are needed to support justice and reconciliation in war-affected Ukraine? And what does this all mean for the situation on the ground?




are

Beware Russian and Chinese Positioning for After the Pandemic

9 April 2020

Keir Giles

Senior Consulting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme
Authoritarian regimes can use the COVID-19 crisis to improve their international standing, taking advantage of others’ distraction. Their aims are different, but their methods have much in common.

2020-04-09-Russia-Aid-Serbia

An airlifter of the Russian Aerospace Forces prepares to fly to Serbia carrying equipment and professionals during the COVID-19 crisis. Photo by Russian Defence MinistryTASS via Getty Images.

Both Russia and China have mounted combined charm offensives and disinformation campaigns on the back of the pandemic. Shipments of ‘aid’ – reportedly of questionable utility and quality - have gone hand in hand with a concerted effort to deflect any blame from China for the early spread, and an ongoing drive by Russia to undermine states’ confidence and have sanctions lifted.

These concurrent operations have very different objectives, as Russia seeks to subvert international order while China is continuing its bid to demonstrate global leadership - but in both cases, they are seeking long-term gains by exploiting the inattention and distraction of their targets.

Both seek to present themselves as globally responsible stakeholders, but for divergent reasons – especially China which needs the rest of the world to recover and return to stability to ensure its own economic recovery. But despite this, the two campaigns appear superficially similar.

Fertile ground for disinformation

One reason lies in the unique nature of the current crisis. Unlike political issues that are local or regional in nature, COVID-19 affects everybody worldwide. The perceived lack of reliable information about the virus provides fertile ground for information and disinformation campaigns, especially feeding on fear, uncertainty and doubt. But Russia in particular would not be succeeding in its objectives without mis-steps and inattention by Western governments.

Confused reporting on Russia sending medical supplies to the United States showed Moscow taking advantage of a US administration in apparent disarray. Claims Russia was sending ’humanitarian aid’ were only belatedly countered by the US State Department pointing out it had been paid for. Meanwhile the earlier arrival of Russian military equipment in Italy also scored a propaganda victory for Russia, facilitated by curious passivity by the Italian government.

In both cases Russia also achieved secondary objectives. With the United States, Russia scored bonus points by shipping equipment produced by a subsidiary of a company under US sanctions. In the case of Italy, Russian state media made good use of misleading or heavily edited video clips to give the impression of widespread Italian acclaim for Russian aid, combined with disdain for the efforts of the EU.

Beijing’s external information campaigns have sought to deflect or defuse criticism of its early mishandling and misinformation on coronavirus and counter accusations of secrecy and falsifying data while also pursuing an opportunity to exercise soft power. For Moscow, current efforts boost a long-standing and intensive campaign to induce the lifting of sanctions, demonstrating if nothing else that sanctions are indeed an effective measure. Official and unofficial lobbying has intensified in numerous capital cities, and will inevitably find supporters.

But both the aid and the information campaigns are seriously flawed. While appropriate and useful aid for countries that are struggling should of course be welcomed, both Russian and Chinese equipment delivered to Europe has repeatedly been found to be inappropriate or defective

Russian photographs of cardboard boxes stacked loose and unsecured in a transport aircraft bound for the United States sparked alarm and disbelief among military and aviation experts - and there has still been no US statement on what exactly was purchased, and whether it was found to be fit for purpose when it arrived.

Reporting from Italy that the Russian equipment delivered there was ‘80% useless’ has not been contradicted by the Italian authorities. In fact, although the Italian sources criticizing Russia remain anonymous it is striking that - President Trump aside - no government has publicly endorsed materials and assistance received from Russia as actually being useful and helpful.

Even in Serbia, with its traditionally close ties with Russia, the only information forthcoming on the activities of the Russian Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops and their equipment that arrived on April 3 was from Russian press releases.

Both countries’ strategic communications efforts are similarly fallible. China’s notoriously heavy-handed approach to its critics is of only limited use in the face of such a severe and immediate threat. One suggestion that the virus originated in the US – an early response to US criticism – has already been walked back by the Chinese diplomat who made it.

And Russia continues to be capable of spectacularly misjudging its targets. When investigative journalists looked more closely at the nature of the assistance to Italy, Russia’s official response was rage and personal threats, laying bare the real nature of the campaign and immediately alienating many of those whom Moscow had sought to win over.

Errors and deficiencies such as these provide opportunities to mitigate the worst side-effects of the campaigns. And actions by individuals can also mitigate much of the impact. The most effective disinformation plays on deeply emotional issues and triggers visceral rather than rational reactions.

Advocates of ’informational distancing’ as well as social distancing suggest a tactical pause to assess information calmly, instead of reacting or spreading it further unthinkingly. This approach would bolster not only calm dispassionate assessment of the real impact of Russian and Chinese actions, but also counter spreading of misinformation on the pandemic as a whole - especially when key sources of disinformation are national leaders seeking to politicize or profit from the crisis.

Limitations of Russian and Chinese altruism must be stated clearly and frankly to fill gaps in public understanding. Where help is genuine, it should of course be welcomed: but if it is the case that assistance received from Moscow or Beijing is not appropriate, not useful, or not fit for purpose, this should be acknowledged publicly.

Even without central direction or coordination with other Russian strategic communications efforts, the self-perpetuating Russian disinformation ecosystem continues to push narratives designed to undermine confidence in institutions and their ability to deal with the crisis. This too must continue to be monitored closely and countered where it matters.

In all cases, miscalculations by Russia or China that expose the true intent of their campaigns – no matter how different their objectives might be - should be watched for closely and highlighted where they occur.

Despite the enormity of the present emergency it is not a time for any government to relax its vigilance over longer-term threats. States must not lose sight of manoeuvres seeking to exploit weakness and distraction. If Russia and China emerge from the current crisis with enhanced authority and unjustifiably restored reputations, this will make it still harder to resist their respective challenges to the current rules-based international order in the future.




are

We are leaving them behind

  Never mind steel, We are creating new materials, Carbon nano-tubes, poly-ceramics, Twirl a ball above your head, we are Building elevators into space, Stringing massage parlours around the earth, We are engineering ourselves, Computer worlds and, Selling real estate, we Are leaving the old people, Behind, Stained curtains and they are, Walking into forests, […]




are

Careful as you go

A time will come, When you don’t even, Own your own body, On the side of the road, A full breakdown not a common, Puncture, Leave your heart, it’s broken, Total mechanical failure. What will you do? Trust what you have given? Love, a blue opinion? You have only what you spent. You think you […]




are

CRM Software Development Company

Sales Fundaa is a Dial N Search Pvt. Ltd. initiative, provides ERP software, CRM Software, Project Management Software, Manufacturing Software, AMC Software, Data Management Software, Real Estate CRM, Logistics Software and Human Resource Management Software.




are

CRM Software in Ahmedabad

SalesFundaa provide a successful CRM software in Ahmedabad Gujarat, that is fit for any business deals based on customer enquiries. Get free quote now!




are

CRM Software in Pune

Looking for best CRM solutions in Pune?. SalesFundaa is one of the best Custom CRM Development company in Pune, which provides new-age CRM software that helps to grow your business.




are

CRM Software in India

SalesFundaa, top leading CRM Software Development Company in India. Our CRM Software Features is Activity Management, Alerts, Notifications, Analytics, Reporting, Billing, Invoicing, Calendar Management, Contact Management, Customer Information System, Social media management, Tasks and Deals.




are

CRM Software Blog

Find here most important blogs for CRM Software. Here CRM Software related Information, guidelines, and helpful Blog. 




are

CRM Software Blog SalesFundaa

Find here most important blogs for CRM Software. Here CRM Software related Information, guidelines, and helpful Blog.




are

Customer Database Management Software in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad

Customer Database Management Software, Customer Management Software, Customer Database Software in Mumbai, Customer Database Management Software in Pune, Customer Database Management Software in Ahmedabad, India.

Customer Database Management Software






are

Customer Relationship Management Software in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad

SalesFundaa is one of the Best Mumbai based Customer Relationship Management Software company in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad. We provide CRM Software System, Build, Manage and Develop Business Relationships with your Customers.




are

Lead Management Software in India

We provide CRM Lead Management Software Solution in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Andheri, Borivali, Bandra, Goregaon, Juhu, Kandivali, Santacruz, Ghatkopar, Chembur, Dadar, Parel, India




are

Best Field Management Software

Salesfundaa is India's Best CRM Order Management System and Field Management Software Company in Mumbai, Pune, and Ahmedabad India. We provide Automated Order and Field management software for retailers, wholesalers and multichannel brands. For more fisit on- https://www.salesfundaa.com/information/blogs/Field_Order_Management_Software




are

Order Management Software in Ahmedabad

Salesfundaa is award-winning Order Management Software and Order Management Software company in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, India. We are providing cloud-based oredr management solution optimizes costs, dispatching, scheduling and reporting.




are

Security and Climate Change: Are we Living in 'The Age of Consequences'?

Research Event

1 December 2016 - 7:00pm to 9:00pm

Chatham House, London

Event participants

Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, CEO, American Security Project; Member, Foreign Affairs Policy Board, US Department of State
Major General Munir Muniruzzaman, President and CEO, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies; Former Military Advisor to the President of Bangladesh 
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Director of Strategy, UK Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy; University College London; Former UK Government Climate and Energy Security Envoy
Dr Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security, Chatham House
Chair: Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP, Former UK Cabinet Office Minister

The US Department of Defense regards climate change as an ‘accelerant of instability and conflict’. A former head of the US Pacific Command described it as the most significant long-term security threat in his region. US federal agencies have recently been mandated to fully consider the impacts of climate change in the development of national security policy. This step-change in the US approach reflects the Pentagon’s conclusion that climate impacts are a ‘threat multiplier’ for security concerns – not just for the future – but which pose ‘an immediate risk to national security’.

A new documentary from the US, The Age of Consequences, explores the links between climate change and security, including in current events in Syria, Egypt, the Sahel and Bangladesh. Our high-level panel will reflect on key sections from the documentary, which will be screened during the event, and explore whether security strategists, militaries and policy-makers in nations other than the US are fully cognisant of the risks posed by a changing climate, and whether they are ready to anticipate and respond to its potentially destabilizing effects.

The panel discussion will be followed by a Q&A.

THIS EVENT IS NOW FULL AND REGISTRATION HAS CLOSED.




are

Isha Blender opens up about loss of her son - Shares the ­heartbreaking tale in latest track ‘I Wish’

REGGAE ARTISTE Isha Blender is still coming to terms with the loss of her son, Josiah, on January 5, a mere two days after she celebrated her birthday. The daughter of legendary crooner Everton Blender said the death of a child can be one of the...




are

#WeAreInThisTogether against COVID-19 - Bay-C, ListenMiNews, Red Cross collaborate on anti-stigma music video

IN AN effort to alleviate misconceptions and misinterpretations of our current COVID-19 reality, and to create the idea that human beings deserve respect, especially when they are ill, ListenMi News has collaborated with the International...




are

Collab shows we are one Caribbean - ‘We Got This’ presents a united regional front against COVID-19

WHAT STARTED as an idea of two Barbadians – Ian Webster and Cheyne Jones – transformed into We Got This, a song which proved enough to stir the collective imagination of 25 recording artistes from 14 countries across the region, disseminating the...




are

Vox Pop: Coping with college and career in quarantine

It is definitely a make-or-break season for those trying to balance career and COVID-19 at home. For some, it is the ideal time to reconnect with themselves, family members and get creative with work. While with others, the cookie crumbles and they...




are

Pancreas Pathology of Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults (LADA) in Patients and in a LADA Rat Model Compared With Type 1 Diabetes

Approximately 10% of patients with type 2 diabetes suffer from latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). This study provides a systematic assessment of the pathology of the endocrine pancreas of patients with LADA and for comparison in a first rat model mimicking the characteristics of patients with LADA. Islets in human and rat pancreases were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for immune cell infiltrate composition, by in situ RT-PCR and quantitative real-time PCR of laser microdissected islets for gene expression of proinflammatory cytokines, the proliferation marker proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL) 10, and the apoptosis markers caspase 3 and TUNEL as well as insulin. Human and rat LADA pancreases showed differences in areas of the pancreas with respect to immune cell infiltration and a changed ratio between the number of macrophages and CD8 T cells toward macrophages in the islet infiltrate. Gene expression analyses revealed a changed ratio due to an increase of IL-1β and a decrease of tumor necrosis factor-α. IL-10, PCNA, and insulin expression were increased in the LADA situation, whereas caspase 3 gene expression was reduced. The analyses into the underlying pathology in human as well as rat LADA pancreases provided identical results, allowing the conclusion that LADA is a milder form of autoimmune diabetes in patients of an advanced age.




are

Hyde comes prepared to first Spring Training

For Brandon Hyde, the days and weeks leading up to Tuesday were filled with phone calls to friends, to former colleagues, to mentors he's made across more than two decades in the game. A constant theme emerged from the ensuing chats: What, exactly, should Hyde expect from his first Spring Training as a big league manager?




are

Now healthy, Karns looks to revive career

Everyone hopes for health this early in spring. But few more than Nate Karns, who has trudged a longer road back than any player in Orioles camp.




are

Here are the Orioles' 2019 Top 30 Prospects

The Orioles began a long-overdue rebuild in July, when the club dealt many of its more-valued big assets in exchange for prospects.




are

Here are 12 Orioles to watch in spring camp

In holding their first full-squad workout on Monday, the Orioles ushered in the first official phase of a spring set to surprise. Fresh faces flood Ed Smith Stadium. Questions litter the roster. Battles abound at nearly every position.




are

Raising HD awareness personal for Smith, wife

They wrestled with the decision to start a family for five years. It's something most young couples discuss at some point. Timing is important, and considering their busy lives, even more so for Astros pitcher Joe Smith and his wife, TV sports reporter Allie LaForce. The issue facing the couple is far more momentous than most others have to deal with -- one that's a matter of life and death.




are

Hall of Famer Biggio visits camp, shares wisdom

The first Hall of Famer to join the Astros at Spring Training is Craig Biggio, who was in uniform for morning workouts on Tuesday and will remain with the team throughout the week.




are

Rare inflammatory condition affects some children with COVID-19

Dozens of United States children have been hospitalised with a serious inflammatory condition possibly linked with the coronavirus and first seen in Europe. New York authorities announced Wednesday that 64 potential cases had been reported to...




are

Great leap backwards - austerity measures are hitting the vulnerable hardest

The UK’s austerity programme has disproportionately affected children and people with disabilities, says David Taylor-Robinson, a senior clinical lecturer in public health at the University of Liverpool. He joins us to discuss why the evidence shows the vulnerable are hit hardest by the cuts to public services, despite the UN conventions on...




are

Men are idiots

Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. Ben and Dennis Lendrem, and colleagues, have reviewed the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period and they join us to discuss why men are idiots, and why their team is not the...




are

Managing multimorbidity in primary care

Multimorbidity presents a number of different challenges, for the patients living with the conditions, but also for the health professionals caring for them in systems that often are not designed with these more complex needs in mind. Emma Wallace, general practice lecturer, and Susan Smith, a professor of general practice at the Royal College of...