by Giulio Meotti

Who knows how many of those faces, thosse, which like never before, crowd the obituary pages of a local newspaper in an area greatly affected by the epidemic, the city of Bergamo, died alone, in isolation, without the caress of their families?

Wouldn’t it have been a nice gesture, a proper one, worthy of our culture of life and humanity, to give a face, a Spoon River, to all these frightening numbers that arrive, day after day, for the past three weeks – to us, every evening at 6 pm, especially considering that they constantly call them “old”?

Maybe it would have been even less glacial. Maybe we would have taken this national tragedy more seriously from the beginning, since we still don’t sem to think it concerns us,  when ot is only one of our “old people” who are taken away. 

In a single day, Italy lost 349 people for a total of 2.158 victims of Covid-19. Yesterday, 368 victims. The day before 170…This is a war. How else can it be described? There is a video from Bergamo. There is a church near the local cemetery. where 40 coffins lie on the ground. There are videos of hospitals where so many old patients are supported by ventilators that doctors had to treat them in the corridors. 

Professor Remuzzi, director of Mario Negri Institute in Milan, said that he is seeing many colleagues who are becoming ill and falling down. “In Bergamo two Tuesdays ago there were 3 dead, seven days later there are 33. Today, 58”. And that if it were up to him, “I would tell those who assist me to help a young boy, not me. I am 70 years old”.

So many problems from North to South of the country in this global emergency; in Naples a family stayed with a dead woman, dead at home, for more than 24 hours, because no one had come to check if she had the virus.

Piero Taffo, who is in charge in Rome at Spallanzani’s Institute of “special burials”: “We have to go out with proper protection, suits, gowns, goggles, special masks. The approach to the deceased and his family has changed, and it’s going to depersonalize even that human aspect that you have to have, facing death”, he explains. “Very few people can participate. I have heard some colleagues from the North and they are telling me that in some cemeteries the places have run out and the crematoria are working 24 hours a day, with the number of deaths growing day by day”.

If the numbers don’t start falling, one crematorium won’t be enough, said the mayor of Bergamo Giorgio Gori. “We won’t be able to meet all the needs. Many corpses have been sent to other places for cremation. The crematorium of the city of Bergamo is not able to dispose of all the work it has to do; this is not to give particular unpleasant details but to make you understand the fatigue, the suffering. They are friends who die, acquaintances, colleagues”. 

And this is just the chronicle from a single Italian city. 

This is the hardest time for my country since the Second world war. 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/25398

As Europe’s resources are stretched in the massive fight against coronavirus, leaders on the continent are beginning to realize that migrants do not come first in their economic and public health decisions. Now, countries like Greece and Belgium are cutting services for migrants and implementing lockdowns on migrant camps, with more countries likely to follow.

For the next two weeks, migrant reception and processing centers on the Greek islands will forbid all visitors, including members of humanitarian organizations and agencies, as the authorities seek ways to halt a coronavirus outbreak in the facilities.

While newcomers will be checked for the coronavirus symptoms and put into quarantine, all special programs in the Greek facilities, such as schools, will be suspended.

Migrants placed in the facility will further not be allowed to walk outside or visit other residents for no reason.

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has expressed its concern over the coronavirus outbreak in migrant camps as there are often insufficient sanitary conditions to prevent an outbreak of coronavirus. Last week, it urged Greek authorities to evacuate all the camps and transport migrants to the mainland.

The problem is that Greece has little idea about what to do with the migrants or where they could put them on the mainland.

While some other European nations have said they will take in migrant minors from Greece, such as Germany, these countries have only committed to 2,000 illegal migrants who are children or teenagers out of the 42,000 living in Greece.

European leaders are trying to prevent further deterioration of the situation by halting another influx of migrants.

While there was no confirmation on the outcome of Tuesday’s video conference talks between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the leaders of France, Germany, and the UK, according to some international news agencies, European leaders pressured Erdoğan to stop the influx of migrants through Greece to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

However, the Turkish president has repeatedly accused the EU of failing to provide the promised financial assistance to Turkey worth €6 billion, which remains a serious point of contention between the EU and Turkey.

Erdoğan reportedly also now wants visa-free travel for 80 million Turks in exchange for closing the border.

Greece is not the only country taking radical action against migrants spreading coronavirus, with migrant centers in Belgium taking vigorous steps to prevent the outbreak, including shutting down services and reception centers for asylum seekers and refusing to deal with new asylum seekers.

Belgium, which is severely hit by the coronavirus, stated the outbreak is the main reason behind its decision why the Federal Immigration Office will no longer review any political asylum applications, new or existing.

Furthermore, the office is currently understaffed, and thus unable to handle the daily volume of 200 applications.

The country decided to introduce this measure despite the EU and the United Nations, which argue that people have a fundamental right to apply for asylum.

Belgium’s unilateral actions may be another sign that countries are taking their own measures in a time of national crisis and putting citizens before migrants.

From Tuesday, a housing center in Brussels shut its doors to asylum seekers due to the coronavirus outbreak.

According to a spokesperson for the immigration office, Geert De Vulder, every day there are about 100 to 150 people in the center’s waiting room, which increases the risk of infection.

However, according to De Vulder, there is no provision that would prevent asylum seekers, including children, to end up living on the streets as they are not entitled to any assistance until they fill their asylum applications.

The Belgian federal body Fedasil, which manages housing centers for refugees, has previously stated that asylum seekers arriving at the Le Petit-Château Fedasil center will be screened and quarantined if they show any symptoms of coronavirus.

The Belgian Commissioner-General for Refugees, an official who helps applicants through the asylum procedure, has also decided to cancel meetings with all asylum applicants, indefinitely.

Germany has also placed residents in quarantine in numerous asylum centers across the country in an attempt to halt the spread of coronavirus, which has led to rising tensions.

Migrants in asylum center in Suhl, Germany, threatened to set fire to the asylum center and displayed the flag of the ISIS terrorist organization after they were forced into quarantine. One migrant inside was found to be infected with coronavirus, leading to all 500 residents placed on lockdown. Despite a breakout attempt, police were successful in keeping the migrants inside the building.

In Germany, there are now 13 asylum seekers in the country with coronavirus infections and that number is only expected to increase.

rmx.news/article/article/many-european-countries-choose-citizens-over-migrants-as-coronavirus-crisis-spreads

By Andrea Widburg

Over the weekend, news broke that the United Kingdom had adopted a wildly different approach from the rest of the world when it comes to coronavirus. While most of the world’s countries were trying to stop or slow the disease until reliable treatments and vaccines are available, Britain planned to create an old-fashioned herd immunity by sequestering vulnerable people but letting everyone else get exposed to the virus.

In an article published here early Monday morning, we suggested that, while this was certainly a creative idea, it was also very risky:

It’s an interesting theory but . . . a risky one.  Misjudge the delicate balance, and you end up with an explosive rate of disease.  Also, viruses mutate, so the coronavirus might grow to become harmful to previously low-risk communities.

[snip]

[W]hile the U.K. is experimenting with something that theoretically makes sense, the downside risks of trying magically to create a herd are huge.  For that reason, we have reason to be grateful that, within 24 hours of excluding the U.K. from the list of European countries now barred entry to America, Trump reversed course and added the U.K. to the list.

It turns out that, by Monday evening, the British government had come to the same conclusion we did and decided not to experiment with its creative coronavirus policy. According to reports, the primary reason the government reversed itself was that, also on Monday, the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team published a report saying that the proposed British plan could have a disastrous outcome.

The study looked at two different approaches to the virus’s spread: Suppression, which is what America is currently trying, and mitigation, which was what Britain proposed. According to the assumptions fed into the computer, “the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over.”

The Imperial College report reached its conclusions using computer simulations which, as we know, are only as good as the data fed into the program. However, given that the British government was relying solely on a theory that would be enforced by a government body on a population that would never be 100% compliant, it’s a pretty sure thing that wisdom was on the side of the computer simulations, not the theory.

For that reason, by late Monday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson followed other nations and told British citizens, both young and old, to start practicing social distancing:

In yesterday’s briefing, the measures presented were drastic, advising that all Brits should stay away from pubs, clubs, theatres and cinemas for weeks – and potentially months.

During the first conference, the prime minister also said:

• Those who can work from home should
  Over 70s, those who are pregnant and anyone with underlying health conditions should try and not leave home
• People are advised to not visit vulnerable and elderly family and friends – for around 12 weeks
• If one family member shows symptoms then the entire family should stay home for two weeks
• The Government is no longer supporting mass public gatherings
• Schools will remain open for now – but kids with a cough should be sent home

The same Imperial College report, incidentally, says that the American “suppression” plan, which replicates the approach in South Korea, is the better plan even though it may only delay the virus’s outbreak, without actually stopping it. The report basically says that we cannot suppress the disease forever and, at some point, must deal with it.

When fighting a viral foe, though, time is valuable. The longer we can hold off the virus, the longer we can research ways to mitigate its effects on the human body. Also, because the virus seems to be temperature sensitive, if we can suppress it just until the warm months, that may buy us enough time to develop a vaccination before the next flu season.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/the_uk_ends_its_creative_experiment_with_herd_immunity.html

Italy’s healthcare system is in a state of almost total collapse. As of today, 31,506 people in Italy have been infected with the coronavirus; of which 2,503 people have died. The numbers continue to grow. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Doctors have to choose which sick person to save and which sick person not to save.

The country has almost completely shut down. Many businesses are running in slow motion or have stopped. Prisoners are staging uprisings. Millions of people have been ordered to stay home and are allowed out only briefly to buy food. Most shops are shut. All public gatherings are prohibited, even funerals. Big cities look like ghost towns.

No other Western country has been so severely affected by the pandemic as Italy. Why?

First, Italy has an aging population. The median age of Italians is 47.3 years; one in four Italians is over 65. In addition, the country’s birth rate is extremely low: 1.29 children per woman. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, Italy was a dying country. Sadly, the virus has accelerated the process.

Second, the authorities and medical personnel apparently underestimated the danger. Although the Italian government had suspended flights for days from China and Hong Kong from January 31, Italian doctors were saying that the illness was just a “bad flu“. On March 9, an epidemiologist, Silvia Stringhini, wrote: “The media are reassuring, the politicians are reassuring, while there’s little to be reassured of”.

Third, the Italian health system is in appallingly bad condition. There are not enough intensive care units and, as everywhere, the possibility of a major crisis simply was not anticipated. In Italy there are 2.62 acute-care hospital beds per 1,000 residents (by comparison, the number in Germany is 6.06 per 1,000 residents). The Italian health system is entirely run by the government. A public health care service (SSN, Servizio Sanitario Nazionale) pays the doctors directly, limits their number, and sets the maximum number of patients they can treat per year (1,500).

Government-run healthcare always ends up being about the government trying to cut its costs rather than to help its citizens. Private clinics do exist, but represent only a small part of the care offered (the public system represents 77% of total health-care spending. (The only country in Europe where the figure is higher is the United Kingdom, where the figure is 79%.) Public hospitals must manage shortages, and when an exceptional situation occurs, rationing care leads to horrific choices. A recent report by Siaarti (Società Italiana di Anestesia Analgesia Rianimazione e Terapia Intensiva) bureaucratically offers “ethical recommendations for admission and intensive treatment in exceptional conditions of imbalance” and speaks of “consensual criteria of distributive justice” to justify not treating certain patients and leaving them to die.

Fourth, and rarely mentioned, is that Italy today is evidently home to a large Chinese community (more than 300,000), made up of people who arrived in the past two decades and who work in the textile and leather sector. Many of the Chinese living in Italy are from Wuhan and Wenzhou, and some had just been in Wuhan and Wenzhou for the Chinese New Year on January 25, when the Chinese authorities could not hide the epidemic any longer. These Chinese had returned to Italy from China before the Italian government suspended flights from there. The epidemic emerged in Lombardy; Bergamo, one of the capitals of the Italian textile industry, was one of the first cities affected.

Before the pandemic, the Italian economy was already in a state of stagnation; now, as people stay home and shops shut, it will probably plunge into a recession. Italian banks, since mid-February, have lost 40% of their market value. Major financial upheavals seem on the way.

The Italian government was hoping for help from the European Union, but neither the other member states nor the European Union itself has given any at all. Maurizio Massari, Italy’s ambassador to the European Union, said at a recent European summit on the pandemic, that Brussels should go beyond “engagement and consultations”, and that Italy needed “quick, concrete and effective actions”. He got nothing.

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, refused to lower interest rates to help Italy; it was a statement Italian leaders took as a demonstration of contempt. Italian President Sergio Mattarella said that Italy expected “solidarity from the EU institutions,” not “moves that could hinder Italy’s actions”. “Italy,” said Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega party, “has been given a slap in the face”.

The dismissive attitude of the EU and the other members states seems to have been dictated by the fear of sliding into a situation as calamitous as that of Italy.

All European countries have an aging population, even if less than Italy’s (the median age in Germany is 46.8; in France it is 41.2; in Spain it is 42.3). No country in the European Union has taken a clear, hard look at the danger Europe is facing.

“The coronavirus is very contagious,” France’s minister of health, Agnes Buzyn, said on January 26, “but much less serious than we thought”.

The borders between France and Italy were not closed in time (only Austria and Slovenia closed their borders with Italy early), and Italians who wished to go to France were not stopped. The health systems of other European countries are not better prepared than the Italian one was. In Spain, Insalud (Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria), an organization equivalent to the Italian system, exists, and shortages and rationed care are the rule. The German (Krankenkassen) and the French (Sécurité Sociale) health insurance systems also operate on the same principles as those in Italy and Spain, and produce similar results. The economies of the main countries of the European Union were in a state of stagnation before the pandemic, and, like the Italian economy, are likely to plunge into a recession soon, too.

At the time of publication, 11,826 people were infected in Spain, 7,695 in France, and 9,360 in Germany. In Spain, 533 people have died; in France, 148 people, and in Germany only 26. As in Italy, the numbers escalate fast.

On March 11, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said to journalists who were accusing her of doing nothing, “60 to 70% of Germans will be infected with the coronavirus”. Lothar Wieler, President of the Robert Koch Institute, the German government agency in charge of disease prevention and control, added that it was necessary to “avoid overloading hospitals” and to let the epidemic gain ground slowly over time.

An adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron told a journalist at Le Figarothat the strategy of France was the same as in Germany: the decision was made to “let the epidemic run its course and not try brutally to stop it”. He suggested that the official will was to create “herd immunity“, a term first used in the United Kingdom by Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government’s chief science adviser. He had said that the aim of the British government was to accept that a significant number of the citizens of a country would be infected, recover, and therefore be immunized. The French and German authorities evidently found inspiration in Sir Patrick’s remarks.

The British government, faced with criticism from the World Health Organization, replied that “herd immunity” was not a stated policy, but no statement by the German or French governments said that “herd immunity” was not the policy they chose.

Umair Haque, the British Director of the Havas Media Lab, wrote:

“Herd immunity describes how a population is protected from a disease after vaccination by stopping the germ responsible for the infection being transmitted between people. Letting an entire nation be rampaged by a lethal virus for which there’s no vaccine? How much death and mayhem would that cause, by the way?”

“Europe has now become the epicentre of the pandemic, with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from China,” noted Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization. “More cases are now being reported every day than were reported in China at the height of its epidemic.” Sadly, all available data show that he is right.

On March 11, President Donald Trump announced that the US was suspending all flights between the United States and Europe, a decision fully justifiable to save American lives. The next day, nevertheless, the heads of the European Union could not resist trying to maul the president: “The EU disapproves of the fact that the U.S. decision to impose a travel ban was taken unilaterally and without consultation,” they said.

It is to be hoped that by now notions of ​​”herd immunity” have been abandoned, and that the EU gets back to salvaging for Europe whatever it can.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15752/coronavirus-comes-for-europe