The United States said on Thursday it would withdraw from the 35-nation Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights over member countries, the Trump administration’s latest move to pull the country out of a major global treaty.
The administration said Russia had repeatedly violated the pact’s terms. Senior officials said the pullout would formally take place in six months, but President Donald Trump held out the possibility that Russia could come into compliance.
“I think we have a very good relationship with Russia. But Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty. So until they adhere, we will pull out,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
His decision deepens doubts about whether Washington will seek to extend the 2010 New START accord, which imposes the last remaining limits on U.S. and Russian deployments of strategic nuclear arms to no more than 1,550 each. It expires in February.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for China to join the United States and Russia in talks on an arms control accord to replace New START. China, estimated to have about 300 nuclear weapons, has repeatedly rejected Mr. Trump’s proposal.
White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien told Fox News Channel later on Thursday that he did not expect the United States to leave the New START accord.
NATO allies and other countries like Ukraine had pressed Washington not to leave the Open Skies Treaty, whose unarmed overflights are aimed at bolstering confidence and providing members forewarning of surprise military attacks.
In Moscow, RIA state news agency quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying that Russia had not violated the treaty and nothing prevented the continuation of talks on technical issues that Washington calls violations.
The Open Skies decision followed a six-month review in which officials found multiple instances of Russian refusal to comply with the treaty.
Last year, the administration pulled the United States out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.
A senior administration said U.S. officials had begun talks in recent days with Russian officials about a new round of nuclear arms negotiations to “begin crafting the next generation of nuclear arms control measures.”
Treaty took effect in 2002
Mr. Trump’s arms control negotiator mounted a full-blown defense of the administration’s arms control policies, focusing on the president’s proposal that China join the United States and Russia on a replacement for New START.
“We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will, but we sure would like to avoid it,” Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea told the Hudson Institute think tank.
The Open Skies treaty, proposed by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1955, was signed in 1992 and took effect in 2002. The idea is to let member nations make surveillance flights over each other’s countries to build trust.
The officials cited a years-long effort by Russia to violate the terms, such as by restricting U.S. overflights of Russia’s neighbour Georgia and the Russian military enclave in Kaliningrad on the Baltic coast.
In addition, they said Russia had been using its own overflights of American and European territory to identify critical U.S. infrastructure for potential attack in time of war.
Some experts worry that a U.S. exit from the treaty, which will halt Russian overflights of the United States, could prompt Moscow’s withdrawal, which would end overflights of Russia by the remaining members, weakening European security at a time that Russian-backed separatists are holding parts of Ukraine and Georgia.
Mr. Trump’s decision to leave the treaty is “premature and irresponsible,” said Daryl Kimball, head of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits in the two months since the coronavirus took hold in the U.S. has swelled to nearly 39 million, the government reported Thursday, even as states from coast to coast gradually reopen their economies and let people go back to work.
More than 2.4 million people filed for unemployment last week in the latest wave of layoffs from the business shutdowns that have brought the economy to its knees, the Labor Department said.
That brings the running total to a staggering 38.6 million, a job-market collapse unprecedented in its speed.
The number of weekly applications has slowed for seven straight weeks. Yet the figures remain breathtakingly high – 10 times higher than normal before the crisis struck.
And the continuing rise shows that even though all states have begun reopening over the past three weeks, employment has yet to snap back and the outbreak is still damaging businesses and destroying jobs.
“While the steady decline in claims is good news, the labor market is still in terrible shape,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said over the weekend that U.S. unemployment could peak in May or June at 20% to 25%, a level last seen during the depths of the Great Depression almost 90 years ago. Unemployment in April stood at 14.7%, a figure also unmatched since the 1930s.
Over 5 million people worldwide have been confirmed infected by the virus, and about 330,000 deaths have been recorded, including more than 93,000 in the U.S. and around 165,000 in Europe, according to a tally kept by Johns Hopkins University and based on government data.
Experts believe the true toll is significantly higher.
Cambridge University will have no face-to-face lectures until summer 2021 at the earliest in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a spokesman said on Wednesday.
It is the first U.K. university to set out its plans for the academic year starting in September.
“The university is constantly adapting to changing advice as it emerges during the pandemic,” the university said.
“Given that it is likely that social distancing will continue to be required, the university has decided there will be no face-to-face lectures during the next academic year.” Lectures would continue to be available online.
Smaller teaching groups could also take place in person, the university said, but only as long as they conform to social-distancing requirements.
The university moved all teaching online in March. Exams will also be carried out virtually. The decision by Cambridge comes as a row has escalated in the U.K. about whether or not it is safe for students to return to school.
Government ministers plan to partially reopen English primary schools from June 1, but this is being challenged by some unions and local councils over safety concerns. Britain has the highest death toll in Europe and the second-worst in the world behind the United States.
The government’s official rolling tally, of deaths after positive tests, stood at 35,341 on Tuesday. But broader statistics including suspected virus deaths took the toll to at least 41,000.
Women in Paris after their release from a police station in 2011, when a ban on full-face coverings went into effect in France. Credit: Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters
While face coverings are fast becoming the norm to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, visible on city streets and public transportation everywhere, the global politics that surround them are more complicated than ever — a reflection not just of this current crisis, but also of broader values and stereotypes.
This is especially true in the European Union, where the laws informally known as “burqa bans” that forbid full-face coverings, often on the basis of public safety, are being called into question.
Suddenly the niqab, or full-face veil, has a whole set of new, more communal, associations; and various legal establishments are gearing up to challenge the current status quo.
“It’s a big contradiction,” said Alia Jafar, a British schoolteacher in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, of the many face covering laws, which differ by country — especially because, to avoid charges of discrimination, the legal wording of most burqa bans is often framed more neutrally to apply to both men and women hiding their faces.
Recently, inspired by the global surge of face coverings, Ms. Jafar posted a picture on social media, which she shared with The New York Times, of two women in the street during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Both wore wide-brimmed hats, pulled low, with scarfs tied across their faces. Only their eyes peeked through.
“It looks like the burqa,” Ms. Jafar said, by telephone. The implication being that things are not that different today. In the street, many wear baseball caps with bandannas across their faces.
Yet this week France stood firm on its ban, which prohibits the wearing of clothing intended to hide the face in public spaces, despite the fact that masks are now being required on public transportation and in high schools. The French interior ministry confirmed to The Times that the face coverings rule of 2010 would stay in place. (A separate 2004 ban prohibits head scarves in public schools, referring to the religious neutrality of state institutions.)
The result is a Catch-22. Those who do not wear a mask can be fined, as can those who violate the face-covering law
While some European countries, such as France, have exceptions to their bans that allow for face coverings for “health” reasons, confusion remains about what counts as an acceptable coronavirus face mask.
France has offered no formal specification. A spokeswoman for the Ministry of the Interior said, in an email, “it is common sense without legal definition.” The situation is further complicated by a worldwide shortage of personal protective equipment (P.P.E.), which has many people turning to existing items found at home for coverings.
When contacted, multiple human rights lawyers referred to the situation in France as “ridiculous.” Yet it is not unique. Many European countries are now requiring the wearing of face masks despite their concurrent bans on face coverings.
A florist in Paris preparing her flower shop for reopening while wearing a protective face mask. Credit: Mohammed Badra/EPA, via Shutterstock
In Belgium, a law passed in 2011 bans the wearing of clothing in the street that obscures one’s identity. Yet now, because of the coronavirus, masks are compulsory on public transportation and “strongly encouraged” in other places.
In the Netherlands, citizens are now required to wear masks on trains and buses. Yet last year, a law came into effect banning face coverings on public transportation, in hospitals and in schools.
In Austria, face masks are now compulsory in shops and on public transportation, yet in 2017 a bill was passed prohibiting face coverings in public spaces. There are similar situations in Denmark, Bulgaria and certain parts of Italy, Spain and Germany.
“Face masks are now seen as a social measure for protecting people, yet still niqabs are treated as an antisocial act,” said Asima Majid, a British Muslim, who currently wears a hijab (the Muslim head scarf), but has worn a face veil in the past. She reached out to other Muslim women via WhatsApp to ask about their experiences.
One, Maryam (she asked that only her first name be used), told The Times that she felt “personally attacked” by the bans. The spread of face coverings during the pandemic has made her feel “victorious.”
“There you go — you were objecting to this last year, and now you are joining in with me,” she said. “You can see that the supposed security threat all of a sudden has ceased.”
Indeed, the justifications for face-covering bans — that there is safety in being able to see people’s faces — are now unsettled. When contacted, several lawyers in Europe argued that the current situation makes such burqa bans unenforceable. “Given circumstances we live in now, the law is de facto not applicable,” said Rupert Wolff, the president of the Austrian Bar.
Satvinder Juss, a lawyer in London and a human rights expert, said that Europe’s burqa wearers are now, legally, on much “firmer ground” given the newly publicized health guidance around face coverings.
Mr. Juss said that if a French police officer were to single out and challenge a woman for wearing a burqa or niqab in public, since she would potentially be surrounded by others wearing home-sourced face coverings, the officer would “clearly be engaging in religious discrimination and sex discrimination,” which is forbidden under the European Convention of Human Rights.
In 2014, Mr. Juss represented a 24-year-old French Muslim who appealed France’s face-covering ban at the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S.A.S. v. France. While the court rejected France’s arguments for the ban for public safety reasons (as well as the protection of human dignity and gender equality), it ultimately upheld the ban, accepting the vaguer aim of “vivre ensemble” (living together). This justification holds that a concealed face inhibits the right of citizens to easily socialize and coexist.
Given that many people in France are rapidly becoming used to seeing people from all walks of life covering their noses and mouths, however, Mr. Juss believes the “living together” justification no longer stands.
Belgium finds itself in a somewhat different position. Its face-coverings ban, which involves punishments of up to seven days in prison, makes no allowances for someone wearing a covering for health reasons, unlike most other European bans. The only exceptions are work, “festive events” or other, overriding laws, like those related to motorcycle helmets.
The country is currently in a state of emergency, which has given the government special powers to pass decrees, and it has made wearing a mask (or an alternative, such as a scarf) mandatory on public transportation.
Yet, no such allowances exist for those wearing masks in the street or other public spaces — a legal situation that Isabelle Rorive, a founder of the Equality Law Clinic at the University of Brussels, described as “bizarre.”
A store in Rotterdam that sells protective face masks, currently being required in many countries to help curb the spread of the coronavirus. Credit: Marco De Swart/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In the Netherlands, Tom Zwart, a professor of cross-cultural law at Utrecht University, used the word “hypocrisy” to characterize his country’s situation. The Dutch government bans face coverings, except for “health and safety,” but Mr. Zwart believes it is on shaky footing.
“Masks are not available,” Mr. Zwart said. “The prime minister even said to make one yourself, use a shawl or something else. So, if you have a burqa or a face veil, why not use that to protect yourself and others against the coronavirus? You are doing exactly what you’ve been told to do.”
In simultaneously enforcing masks for safety while also banning other face coverings, he said, with a laugh, huge swaths of the population are currently unwittingly breaking the law despite following the government’s new advice.
It is “very ironic,” said Karima Rahmani, the chair of group of more than 70 niqab-wearing women in the Netherlands called Blijf van mijn Niqaab (“Don’t touch my niqab”), who believe the burqa ban has fostered divisions and oppresses women.
The government, she said, was “talking about my niqab for years and years and making it a problem, coming with all kinds of arguments about how I’m dangerous, and disconnected from society, but they are all wearing masks now.”
Now, she said, she has noticed a slight public shift as others cover their faces. “Since the outbreak, there haven’t been people swearing at me in the street,” Ms. Rahmani said. “And I was used to being sworn at every day. People normally look at me angrily, but I have seen a change in their eyes. I can only hope that after all of this we can come together, and speak about their experience with face veils being everywhere now.”
E. Tendayi Achiume, the United Nations special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, said she hopes that as wearing masks for the sake of good will becomes normal, people will pause to think about how fear helped justify the passage of burqa bans.
“The political construction of the idea that face veils are something that are threatening to a nation, to a culture, to a society, has now been confronted,” she said.
“Calling the current Afghan Islamic national liberation movement terrorists or a proxy is an untrue and provocative statement,” Suhail Shaheen, spokesman of the Taliban’s Doha-based Political Office, tells The Hindu
The Taliban is not a proxy of any country and it does not want to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, the group’s political spokesperson said on Tuesday.
“Calling the current Afghan Islamic national liberation movement terrorists or a proxy is an untrue and provocative statement,” Suhail Shaheen, the spokesman of the Taliban’s Doha-based Political Office, told The Hindu.
He spoke about India’s policy on Afghanistan soon after the deputy leader of Taliban’s Political Office in Qatar, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, was reported to have accused India of playing a “negative role” inside Afghanistan. Part of India’s concern over the Taliban’s opinions, especially on Kashmir, stems from the fact that South Block still considers it a terror group and has refused to engage it in a dialogue.
Mr. Shaheen also indirectly dismissed social media reports about the outfit’s opinion on the Kashmir issue, vowing to stay away from the domestic affairs of other countries. “The Islamic Emirate has a clear policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”
He also addressed the issues raised by National Security Advisory Board member Amar Sinha, who in an interview to The Hindu had questioned why the Taliban was unwilling to fight ISIS-KP jointly with the Afghan government.
The U.S. had blamed the ISIS-KP for the recent attack on a hospital in Kabul and the Taliban had blamed “malicious elements” for the killings. In response to the Indian official’s doubts, Mr. Shaheen said the Taliban is an independent entity and will not join hands with others to fight ISIS. “Based on Doha Accord with the U.S., we will not allow any one to use the soil of Afghanistan against any one. It is our commitment. We don’t join hands with any one. We are independent people,” he said, adding that those Indian policymakers who oppose exchanges with the Taliban are not realistic.
“Why should India give legitimacy to this kind of force in its own neighbourhood?” Mr. Sinha had asked in the interview where he had criticised the group for not declaring a ceasefire in the month of Ramzan. Mr. Sinha’s remarks had followed the Delhi visit of U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who had urged India to engage the Taliban. Sources familiar with the exchanges with the envoy had said India was yet to decide on whether to engage the Taliban. Mr. Shaheen maintained that the Indian officials who oppose engagement with the Taliban are “following a failed policy”.
“As such they are not speaking for the interests of the people of India while they should, and are in fact, speaking for the interests of a few at the saddle of power in Kabul. Consequently, India could not find a proper place among the masses of Afghanistan despite spending a lot in the country,” said Mr. Shaheen.
Chinese authorities have sealed off the north-eastern city of Shulan, home to about 700,000 people, after an outbreak of coronavirus, imposing measures similar to those used in Wuhan.
All villages and residential compounds in the city were closed off, and only one person from each household allowed out for two hours every second day for essentials.
The development came as Beijing signalled it could ease some border restrictions as it prepares for the start on Thursday of its signature political event, the Communist party’s delayed annual congress, also known as the “two sessions”.
In Shulan, residential compounds were restricted to just one entry and exit for emergency vehicles, and banned non-residents and vehicles from entering. If there are confirmed cases in a community residence, no one can enter or leave.
Last week, the city was reclassified as high risk after a cluster of cases emerged connected to a woman with no known history of travel or exposure to the virus. In response, authorities ordered the temporary closure of public places, schools and public transport.
On Monday however these restrictions were increased further, with China Daily referring to the city as “the latest pandemic hotspot in the country”. It said hundreds of people were under medical quarantine, and that life might not go back to normal for weeks.
On Tuesday, another nearby city introduced protective measures.
Jilin province authorities said that due to the “severe circumstances” of the epidemic in the areas surrounding the city of Jiaohe, public transport inside the city and between the city and neighbouring counties would be stopped until further notice.
The north-east of the country, which borders Russia and North Korea, has emerged as an area of serious concern, as cases appear to have been brought in from across the border, and then begun to spread locally.
A worker disinfects a residential community in Jilin city, in north-east China’s Jilin Province. Photograph: Xinhua/REX/Shutterstock
At least 34 people have been diagnosed with Covid-19 in Jilin province in the past fortnight.
Despite the highest level of lockdowns prompted by just a few dozen cases, Chinese media have said the country can handle more imported cases and will likely begin opening up again.
Chinese media has reported the country is likely to ease its border controls after the two sessions meeting, which begins Thursday.
Relaxed entry rules could apply to Chinese students overseas who want to return home after graduating, and business travellers, but not large numbers of tourists yet, according to academics quoted by the Global Times.
Zhou Zijun, a public health expert at Peking university, told the paper China “can now properly handle a small level of imported cases”.
Discussions were reportedly beginning between countries including China, Japan and South Korea, about opening channels for business travel, with strict testing requirements.
On Monday China reported six new cases of Covid-19, of which three were local transmissions. Two were in Jilin province, and one in Hubei. The national health commission also reported 17 new asymptomatic coronavirus cases.
Chinese authorities are particularly sensitive to the possibility of further outbreaks, just days out from its annual “two sessions”, which had been postponed from March because of the coronavirus. While there are extra measures in place to ensure the meeting of party delegates goes ahead safely, it is a sign that Beijing believes it is beginning to go back to normal.
At the end of April tens of millions of people travelled for the first time in months over a five-day national holiday, and quarantine requirements on people arriving in Beijing were lifted.
Housing officials in charge of residences have been warned they will be removed from their roles if there are new outbreaks, prompting speculation this could backfire and lead to local cover-ups. Some officials in Wuhan – where another small outbreak recently prompted an ambitious plan to test all 11 million residents – and Jilin province have already been removed from their posts, Chinese media has reported.
Australia on Tuesday welcomed international support for an independent coronavirus pandemic investigation as China ratcheted up a bilateral trade rift by placing tariffs on Australian barley
The World Health Organization bowed to calls Monday from most of its member states to launch an independent probe into how it managed the international response to the coronavirus.
The comprehensive evaluation, sought by a coalition of African, European and other countries including Australia, is intended to review lessons learned from WHO’s coordination of the global response to COVID-19, but would stop short of looking into contentious issues such as the origins of the respiratory virus.
Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne had earlier welcomed the apparent majority support for the motion, saying her government wanted the inquiry to be impartial, independent and comprehensive.
Australia is seen as a leader in rallying global support for an inquiry, attracting Chinese criticism that it is parroting the United States and inviting a Chinese boycott of exports and services.
Australian government critics have argued that Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s conservative administration should have gathered allies before antagonising Australia’s most important trading partner.
The trade dispute is the first time Beijing has used access to its huge markets as leverage in its campaign to deflect blame for the outbreak. But it has used the tactic regularly against governments from Norway to Canada in political disputes over the past decade.
Punishment for transparency over virus?
China’s Ministry of Commerce announced tariffs of around 80% on Australian barley from Tuesday, a crop the Chinese argue is subsidised by the Australian government.
China banned beef imports from Australia’s four largest abattoirs a week ago over labeling issues.
Many observers say the trade disputes are punishment for Australia’s demand for transparency over the pandemic.
Trade Minister Simon Birmingham on Tuesday described the tariff decision as deeply disappointing, but welcomed the endorsement of a coronavirus inquiry by the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, in Geneva.
Our government welcomes the cooperation and support from countries right around the world, Birmingham told Nine Network television.
Australian barley farmer Andrew Weidemann said the tariff barrier stops the trade completely with Australia’s biggest customer.
Weidemann estimated the tariffs would cost the Australian economy more than 500 million Australian dollars ($326 million).
It’s a really bitter pill to swallow, Weidemann said. It’s a real dent in our economy and it will have a big impact.
In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said China is looking into trade issues between the sides in accordance with related laws and World Trade Organization rules.
He said the international consensus is that anti-epidemic cooperation remains a top priority, and it is not time to immediately activate the review and investigation into origins of the virus.
Birmingham said Australia is prepared to take China to the World Trade Organization over both the beef and barley issues.
Chinese officials routinely refuse to confirm a trade disruption is related to a political clash but make it clear Beijing wants concessions.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Monday Beijing has been “transparent” throughout the coronavirus crisis, and offered to share a vaccine as soon as one was available — as well as $2 billion in aid.
Governments including the U.S. and Australia have called in recent weeks for an investigation into the origins of the virus, which has become a flashpoint in deteriorating tensions between Washington and Beijing.
Both U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have accused China of a lack of transparency over the issue, and repeatedly pushed the theory that the virus leaked from a Chinese maximum-security laboratory.
Addressing the first-ever virtual gathering of the WHO’s annual assembly, Mr. Xi said China has “always had an open, transparent and responsible attitude”, and had shared information on the virus in a timely manner.
Chinese scientists have said the virus emerged from a market that sold wild animals in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in December, though officials have more recently cast doubt about its origins.
Authorities in Wuhan have come under fire for reprimanding and silencing doctors who raised the alarm about the virus late last year. China is also accused of having delayed confirmation that the virus was transmissible between humans.
China has strenuously denied accusations of a cover-up, insisting it has always shared information with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other countries in a timely manner.
The assembly was set to discuss a resolution tabled by the EU that calls for an “impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation” of the international response to the coronavirus crisis.
WHO-led probe
Speaking via videolink with a painting of the Great Wall in the background, Mr. Xi said China supports a “comprehensive evaluation” of the global response to the pandemic after it “has been brought under control” and that the probe should be led by the WHO.
The inquiry should “sum up experiences and improve shortcomings” and “adhere to the principles of objectivity and fairness”, Mr. Xi told the World Health Assembly.
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pledged at the assembly to launch an independent probe to review the coronavirus pandemic response “at the earliest appropriate moment”.
With the world racing to find a drug to stop the pandemic, Mr. Xi pledged to make any potential vaccine developed by China a “global public good” once it was put into use.
This move would be China’s contribution to achieving accessibility and affordability of a vaccine in developing countries as well, Mr. Xi said.
China says it has five potential vaccines in clinical trials.
A top Chinese health official said last week that more vaccine candidates are in the pipeline and awaiting approval for human trials.
Experts say it will take at least 12 to 18 months to develop an effective vaccine, or even longer.
Mr. Xi also told the assembly that China will provide $2 billion in international aid over two years to help with COVID-19 response and economic development in affected countries, especially in the developing world.
“China will work with members of the Group of 20 nations to implement the debt relief initiative for the poorest countries,” he said.
Mr. Xi also said China would work with the United Nations to set up a “global humanitarian response depot” in China and facilitate the international movement of medical supplies.
U.S. President Donald Trump once again on Monday attacked the World Health Organisation (WHO), saying the UN health body was a ‘puppet’ of China.
Trump claimed that more people would have died from coronavirus in the country had he not imposed a ban on travel from China, which was ‘opposed’ by the health agency.
“They (WHO) are a puppet of China. They’re China-centric, to put it nicer,” Trump told reporters at the White House. The United States pays them $450 million a year; China pays them $38 million a year, Trump said in response to a question.
Trump said the WHO was against the imposition of a ban on travel from China in late January.
“The World Health Organization was against it. They were against me doing the ban. They said you don’t need it, it’s too much, it’s too severe, and they turned out to be wrong,” he said.
Trump said Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and former vice-president Joe Biden was too against the ban. “Sleepy Joe Biden said the same thing. He said I was xenophobic. I was xenophobic because I said you can’t come in if you come from China. You can’t come into our country, very early. And Biden said I was xenophobic,” he said.
“If I didn’t do that ban, you would have lost hundreds of thousands of more people in this country. It was a very important ban. People don’t like talking about the ban, but it was very important,” the U.S. President said, claiming that it was only he who wanted it. “We did it and saved thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of lives probably.”
This vaccine is among the eight that are ahead in terms of being tested in humans for efficacy
A high-profile potential vaccine for COVID-19 being tested by researchers at Oxord University failed to protect vaccinated monkeys from being infected by the virus. However, the test animals appeared to be protected from pneumonia.
The vaccine candidate, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, being tested is a weakened form a common cold virus (adenovirus) that affects chimpanzees but has been neutered to prevent replication in humans.
Reports of the candidate vaccine’s performance in monkeys (rhesus macaque) have prompted researchers to test the vaccine’s potency in humans. Its promise has also led to Indian vaccine manufacturer, the Pune-based Serum Institute announcing plans to manufacture a four to five million doses by end-May in India. It is one of seven global institutions that will manufacture the vaccine being developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group.
However, detailed results of the trials in monkeys available on pre-print server bioRxiv suggest that, based on these results, the vaccine may not be the panacea to protecting people from being infected and passing on the infection to others. The research paper is yet to be peer-reviewed.
Rajesh Gokhle, Faculty, National Institute of Immunology and former head of the CSIR-Insitute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, who has read the paper, said that in an “ideal” world, no company would continue testing the vaccine in humans based on the available data in monkeys.
“We have presence of the virus in the upper respiratory tract (of the animals). It is possible that these can come down again to the lower respiratory tract (and cause pneumonia). Ideally, if you’ve been inoculated with the vaccine, you should be able to substantially clear out the virus,” he told The Hindu.
The researchers, in their paper acknowledge the presence of virus in the upper respiratory tract. “Despite this marked difference in virus replication in the lungs, reduction in viral shedding from the nose was not observed,” they note.
They explain it as being possibly due to the unusually high amount of the virus that the monkeys were exposed to. Unusual, in that human beings were unlikely to be ordinarily exposed to those quantities of the virus.
The researchers, led by Sarah Gilbert of The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford and Vincent Munster of the National Institutes of Health, United States, argue that the presence of virus was significantly reduced in BAL fluid (collected from the lungs) and lung tissue of vaccinated animals than in the animals that were not vaccinated.
Moreover, virus specific neutralising antibodies were detected in those macaques vaccinated and no such antibodies were seen in those that didn’t get the vaccine.
For their analysis they vaccinated six monkeys with the candidate vaccine and 3 were given a ‘control’ vaccine called ChAdOx1 GFP.
Based on these results 1,110 people are taking part in human trial, half receiving the vaccine and the other half (the control group) receiving a meningitis vaccine. The dose of the vaccine was half that of what is being used for humans right now.
This vaccine is among the eight that are ahead in terms of being tested in humans for efficacy.
