Ukraine is asking for security guarantees from the United States, European countries and Moscow as part of a possible settlement following the Russian invasion, a government adviser has said.

Kiev admits its long-term goal of joining the NATO military alliance is distant due to Kremlin opposition, and is instead seeking a separate short-term security deal, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Friday. .

Mykhailo Podolyak’s comments follow the breakdown of peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers in the southern Turkish city of Antalya.

Thursday’s meeting was their first since Russia invaded its neighbor on February 24, but it yielded few results, with sticking points including Moscow’s territorial claims over parts of Ukraine.

NATO “is still not ready to accept Ukraine as an unconditional partner,” Podolyak told the Financial Times. “This uncertainty, as we understand it, will last for a long time.”

He added that Ukraine was discussing “new European security formats” with Russia and the West that could give Ukraine “comparable guarantees” to Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

Podolyak made it clear that Ukraine would not agree to another deal with weak assurances, such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by Kyiv, Moscow, the United States and the United Kingdom.

The deal meant that Ukraine handed over its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, which was the third largest in the world at the time, to Russia in return for security guarantees from the other signatories.

“The main problem with the Budapest Memorandum is the lack of clear legal obligations for the guarantor parties in the event of an assault,” Podolyak said.

“Now when we talk about security guarantees for Ukraine, we are only talking about clear legal obligations,” he added. “Specific logistical actions. Thus, in the event of aggression against Ukraine, specific states are legally bound to take specific measures to protect Ukraine,” he added.

TAMPA, Fla. — Two overarching themes in Tampa Bay Buccaneers-related discussions among NFL executives, scouts and coaches at the NFL meeting in Indianapolis last week were:

1. Quarterback uncertainty, which won’t be answered until at least March 14, when the legal tampering begins.

2. Wide receiver Chris Godwin is too important to lose and can’t hit the open market.

“Chris is so valuable to what we do, and obviously we really, really want him back,” Tampa Bay coach Bruce Arians said last week.

Representatives for Godwin met with the Buccaneers in Indianapolis, and both parties said those conversations were positive and that Godwin’s asking price was fair and reasonable.

Barring an 11th-hour deal, which is unlikely, the Bucs are ready to franchise Godwin before Tuesday’s deadline at 4 p.m. ET, which would cost the Bucs an estimated $19.18 million after signing him. paid $15.98 million to play under the franchise tag last season.

A franchise tag doesn’t automatically mean a long-term deal won’t happen, and sources close to those negotiations have pointed that out. The Bucs still have until July 15 to negotiate the upcoming season.

The Dallas Cowboys placed the tag on quarterback Dak Prescott before last year’s franchise tag deadline, but it was considered a mere procedural decision before Prescott signed his extension long term, which he did.

But the NFL requires that a second consecutive franchise tag for a player cost at least 120% more than the player’s previous salary. The downsides are that it doesn’t allow for any salary cap relief (compared to a contract that could spread the cap over years, which the Bucs could really use) and teams can’t tag a player more than three times. They could also theoretically reach a new deal before free agency begins on March 16.

Kenny Golladay helped boost the wide receiver market when he signed a four-year contract with the New York Giants worth $72 million last March. Expect Godwin, who turned 26 in February, to seek a three-year contract so he can return to free agency before he turns 30 – which would allow him to cash in again, assuming he maintains his level of play.

If the Bucs tag Godwin, it prevents them from tagging cornerback Carlton Davis, a player some had tied the Bucs to tagging and who the Bucs said they would be open to tagging.

But Davis is coming off a season where he missed five games and had just one interception. Although he’s a solid press corner and arguably the Bucs’ best corner, teams in the league are still watching the stats. Two years ago, he had a personal best four steals, but he was still tied for seventh in the league (Xavien Howard led the league with 10 that season).

Godwin spent two seasons catching passes from recently retired quarterback Tom Brady. But Godwin also had a 1,000-yard season with Jameis Winston — further proof of why the wide is well-respected in NFL circles.

Godwin is coming off a 1,103-yard season despite missing the last three games with a torn ACL and MCL, which he underwent surgery to repair Jan. 3. NFL. Arians said he believes Godwin is around 45% recovered.

“Knowing Chris and the way he works – he’s had a good surgery, and these guys are coming back faster and faster now – I don’t think that’s going to be a problem at all,” Arians said.

When quarantine-free one-way travel (QFT) was introduced in October 2021 for Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu – three countries participating in New Zealand’s Recognized Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme – it was considered that the arrangement would bring significant relief to horticulture and viticulture. grape growers seeking seasonal labor for the 2022 season. Thanks to a series of external factors, including the recent volcanic eruption and tsunami in Tonga and the arrival of COVID-19 in Tonga and Samoa, QFT arrivals for the peak harvest period are now in question.

Collaborative efforts to implement the QFT – by CSR employers, industry groups, commercial airlines and government officials from New Zealand and the participating Pacific countries – got the arrangement off to a good start. . Regular flights arrived in the spring (September to November) and by early January 2022 over 2,400 CSR workers had entered under QFT, the majority from Vanuatu (50%) and Samoa (39%), and a smaller share of Tonga (11%) .

If QFT had continued as planned, an additional 6,600 CSR workers were expected to arrive between mid-January and the end of March for the summer harvest period. As with previous QFT flights and with CSR recruitment in previous years, Vanuatu (45%) secured the majority of places, followed by Samoa (37%) and Tonga (17%).

In the case of Tonga, more than 1,100 CSR workers were due to arrive in New Zealand by March 31. However, following the January 15 eruption and tsunami and the outbreak of COVID-19 – probably linked to the delivery of humanitarian aid in the aftermath of the disaster – the country is now in confinement.

COVID-19 has also reached The coasts of Samoa. After a short confinement and no evidence of community transmission, Samoa has resumed daily life with COVID-19 restrictions in place. But international flights are largely limited to cargo. The Samoan government has approved a only RSE charter flight for mid-February, likely to carry about 300 workers, and a cargo flight carrying passengers in both directions. CSR employers had planned to draw heavily on Samoan labor for the upcoming apple harvest; 2,500 Samoan RSE workers were originally due to arrive by March 31.

Given the ever-changing environment in which the CSR program operates, it is difficult to predict what numbers may arrive by March 31: however, a conservative estimate – as of February 12 and noting that flight times change short-term – would suggest around 4,200 of those originally scheduled to arrive may come. There are several assumptions in this estimate: 1) all flights from Vanuatu scheduled through March 31 arrive as scheduled; 2) Samoa has around 450 workers arriving in February on newly announced flights and from 1 March regular CSR flights resume as scheduled; and 3) Tonga resumes RSE flights from March. There could be 1,500 additional RSE arrivals if Samoa and Tonga can reschedule postponed flights from January and February, and also operate those flights in March. This in turn would bring the total to around 5,700 arrivals. But these are very big assumptions, and in the case of Tonga, unlikely given that the country is now struggling with a growing epidemic of COVID-19.

As the peak harvest period begins, producers fear another difficult season with a labor shortage likely to be exacerbated by Omicron. Currently, about 7,500 CSR workers are in the country, about half of the current annual cap of 14,400 CSRs. This year, rather than being a component of the seasonal workforce, they are the core of the workforce. There are few backpackers left and it is virtually impossible to find suitable New Zealanders for seasonal jobs in rural and regional areas with the current context. record unemployment ratedespite major campaigns to attract Kiwis to seasonal work.

Of the 7,500 CSR workers ashore, approximately 3,100 are long-term workers who arrived pre-COVID, before March 2020. Long-term CSR workers have now been performing heavy physical labor in orchards and vineyards for more than two years. Burnout, declining motivation and productivity are taking their toll at a time when CSR workers may face intense pressure to make up for labor shortages by working long hours to pick and pack the fruit . In the kiwifruit industry alone, 24,000 seasonal workers are needed for the March harvest peak, with an estimate shortage of 6,500 workers.

As part of the government’s recent announcement gradual reopening of the border in five stages, CSR workers from other eligible countries in the Pacific will be able to return to the country from the end of February. However, unlike QFT where CSR workers started working immediately, they will be required to self-isolate for 10 days in accordance with public health requirements. Backpackers – another important component of the seasonal workforce – can also re-enter from mid-March. But there’s no guarantee of a sudden influx of backpackers as New Zealand deals with its Omicron outbreak. The expense associated with 10-day self-isolation can be an additional deterrent.

Even with the opening of the CSR system to other countries, where will the workers come from? Fiji is struggling with a third wave of COVID-19although this may have peaked in January 2022. The The Solomon Islands, Kiribati and PNG are all battling COVID-19 outbreaks, with lockdowns in place in Kiribati and Solomon Islands. Tuvalu and Nauru are COVID-free, but both countries’ CSR numbers have historically been weak.

When it comes to CSR labor supply, it seems likely that employer demands will fall on Vanuatu. Vanuatu remains COVID-19 free and could potentially provide more seasonal labor, but not without overcoming several issues: a current lack of passports due to supply delays from Europe; the lack of staff and resources within the Employment Services Unit (ESU) which processes applications for seasonal work in New Zealand and for labor mobility programs in Australia; and vaccination requirements which mean that all Ni-Vanuatu departing for New Zealand must be fully vaccinated – a challenge when less than half of eligible adult population had received two doses by 30 January 2022. Vanuatu is to start administering the single-dose Johnson and Johnson vaccine to achieve national immunization goals more quickly.

In addition to this, the Vanuatu Department of Labor recently increased license fee for approved recruiting agents to help cover some of the administrative costs of ESU. The higher fees for agents will mean higher recruitment costs for CSR employers who use agents to recruit their CSR workers. Initial costs for ni-Vanuatu workers to participate in the CSR program have also increased, in part due to additional COVID-19 testing requirements prior to departure.

Thanks to a favorable growing season for apples and kiwifruit, high production volumes are expected for 2022 with good quality fruit. However, labor remains the main constraint. While the industry CEOs of the country’s major horticultural exports – Kiwi, wine and apples – welcome the government’s plans to reopen the border, all say it’s too little, too late.

Despite government initiatives over the past 12 months, a significant shortage of workers for the peak harvest seems almost guaranteed. It is difficult to see, at this time, what additional measures can be offered to support the labor needs of the industry. The 2022 season could still be the toughest producers have faced in the program’s 15-year history.

On January 14, 2022, at SEC vs. Panuwat, Index No. 21-cv-06322 (ND Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick refuse Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the SEC’s First-Ever “Parallel Trading” Enforcement Action. “Shadow trading” is the name given to a new theory of insider trading by a recent academic paper which describes an individual’s use of inside information about a company to trade in the shares of a separate but “economically related” company, such as a competitor, business partner or supplier. This theory seems to have gained traction with Justice Orrick. Its decision to deny Panuwat’s request to dismiss has already been hailed as a significant victory for the SEC. But predictions that parallel trading stocks are here to stay may be premature.

A motion to dismiss—in which the court must accept the SEC’s allegations as true and reach reasonable conclusions in favor of the SEC—remains a poor procedural mechanism for testing the long-term viability of a new dependent liability theory. facts, such as parallel trade. . Other recent government efforts to expand the limits of insider trading liability, such as the application of insider trading laws to government information in United States vs. Blaszczak— only faced their true trials at trial and in post-trial appeals. Even though parallel trade has now survived a motion to dismiss, the theory’s long-term viability will likely only be tested after the many factual questions open in panuwat get an answer.

Matthew Panuwat worked as Senior Director of Business Development at Medivation, a mid-cap biopharmaceutical company. In that role, he learned that Pfizer had expressed “overwhelming interest” in acquiring Medivation. According to the SEC, within minutes of learning this information, Panuwat purchased 578 call options on shares of Incyte, another mid-cap biopharmaceutical company. In SEC vs. Panuwat, filed last year, the SEC alleged that Panuwat engaged in insider trading by buying those options. The case is the SEC’s first attempt to enforce its insider trading rules based on a “parallel trading” theory.

According to the SEC, “shadow trading” is a version of the “misappropriation theory” of insider trading. “The ‘misappropriation theory’ holds that a person commits ‘insider trading’ when they misappropriate confidential information for securities trading purposes, in violation of an obligation owed to the source of the information” , whether or not that person has an obligation to “the buyer”. or seller of company shares. United States vs. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 652 (1997). According to the theory of misappropriation, insider trading breaches a duty to the source of the information because it “frustrates the principal of the exclusive use of [its] information.” ID.

In SEC vs. Panuwat, the SEC complaint alleges that Panuwat’s conduct violated his duty to Medivation. In opposing Panuwat’s motion to dismiss, the SEC reported the[SS1] The Ninth Circuit’s decision in SEC c. Talbot, which ruled that Fidelity board member J. Thomas Talbot engaged in insider trading by buying Lending Tree stock based on confidential information he learned about Lending Tree during a a meeting of the Fidelity board of directors. (Entry in file 19 to 17 (citing SEC vs. Talbot, 530 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2008)). The Ninth Circuit found that Talbot’s conduct fell within the “misappropriation theory” of insider trading because Talbot breached his duty to Fidelity when he used confidential Fidelity information for his own gain. Talbot, 530 F.3d at 1096-1097. The Talbot court explained that Talbot’s conduct was unlawful whether or not Fidelity was harmed by Talbot’s trades or whether or not Talbot had fiduciary duties to Lending Tree. ID. at 1093,1096-1097.

While Talbot seems to support broad liability for “parallel trade”, Judge Orrick’s decision does not seem to go that far. Despite the SEC’s invocation of Talbot, Judge Orrick found that Panuwat’s conduct breached its duty to Medivation because Medivation’s general policy on insider trading prohibited employees from using nonpublic information to trade “stocks”. ‘another publicly traded company, including any associates, customers, partners, suppliers, or competitors of the Company.(Docket Entry 26 at 2, 9.) Justice Orrick interpreted this expansive language to include the titles of any “publicly traded company”, thus including the securities of Incyte. (ID. 8-9.) Based on the policy, Judge Orrick found that Panuwat’s purchase of the Incyte securities violated his duty to Medivation.

Focusing on Medivation’s insider trading policy, Justice Orrick did not determine whether “parallel trading” would be illegal in the absence of an explicit policy prohibiting the conduct (or whether a narrow policy that does not not prohibit driving would provide a defence). Like an article on NYU’s Compliance & Enforcement blog, Judge Orrick’s ruling begs the question: “If the prohibition is not contained in the policy, which presumably means there is no duty of confidence in this As far as information is concerned, is the insider free to trade?” The answer to this question can have important implications because the researchers found that of 267 companies with insider trading policies, only 53% prohibit trading in other companies’ stocks based on nonpublic information. Moreover, these statistics would not indicate whether any of these companies’ insider trading prohibitions are as broad as Medivation’s. It will be important to see whether “parallel trade” remains a viable theory in the absence of such a broad policy, as well as the extent to which companies review and possibly modify their policies in light of panuwat (as some have call for).

Nor does Justice Orrick’s ruling specifically resolve what information is “material” in the context of “parallel trade.” With respect to materiality, Judge Orrick found that the SEC had sufficiently alleged that the “imminent acquisition” of Medivation by Pfizer was material to Incyte because the two companies were part of a limited group of biopharmaceutical companies in mid-cap with commercial-stage drugs. According to Judge Orrick, these similarities made it plausible that Pfizer’s interest in Medivation would make Incyte more attractive to investors or to other companies that had considered acquiring Medivation. (Entrance to roll 26 at 7-8.)

This finding is noteworthy because it recognizes that information about a company can be important for investments in a separate company. Since Judge Orrick only considered whether the SEC’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, it remains to be seen whether the SEC’s theory will hold up after discovery or at trial. In particular, Panuwat may well be seeking to establish that the Medivation information would not be material to a reasonable investor’s decision to trade in Incyte’s stock on the basis of any differences (revealed during the preliminary investigation or at lawsuit) into the historical evolution of the two companies’ share prices, financial projections, drug pipeline and corporate strategy. Industry participants and their attorneys should closely examine whether Panuwat can ultimately persuade an investigator (or an appellate court) that the “imminent acquisition” of Medivation was not material to Incyte despite the SEC’s allegations. highlighted in Justice Orrick’s decision, and where the line of materiality is drawn.

Justice Orrick’s acceptance of “parallel trading” as a viable theory of insider trading is undoubtedly remarkable. But a motion to dismiss is far from an ideal mechanism for testing a factual theory of liability, and particularly one that raises so many questions for market participants (labelled in part here) such as the general theory of “parallel trade”. Only time will tell if panuwat is only the “perfect storm” for “parallel trade”, or whether the theory is viable beyond the unique facts of this particular case.

Penina Moisa, a partner of the firm, participated in the preparation of this blog post.

To know more about Brian A. Jacobs, please visit www.maglaw.com.

The Indian construction industry is perhaps the second largest employer after the agricultural sector; however, the alarming number of injuries and fatalities also makes it one of the most dangerous activities. According to a 2015 study published in the Scientific World Journal, India’s construction workforce, which accounts for 7.5% of the total global workforce, contributes to 16.4% of fatal work accidents. in the world.

The study also indicates that the possibility of a death is five times more likely in the construction sector than in a manufacturing industry. Independent surveys by NGOs and the media also indicate that the number of injuries and deaths in the construction sector is considerably high.

Accidents due to falls from heights and electrocution are common workplace hazards in the construction industry. Injuries can place a heavy burden on construction workers who are already financially constrained. Moderate and severe injuries can lead to poor quality of life and have long-term psychosocial impacts. Such accidents and their subsequent consequences can be avoided. It may therefore be wise for construction companies and developers to consider a proactive approach such as high-risk specialist safety audits for their businesses.

What is a security audit of high-risk operations?

The High-Risk Operations Safety Audit is an in-depth audit of situations that could potentially cause serious injury and damage to people and property and helps organizations focus on these activities. The audit actively examines high-risk activities such as working at height, confined space entry, lifting operations, soil excavation, electrical safety, fire safety management and worker safety. subcontractors. In addition, leadership commitment and accountability, risk assessment and management, and work permits are discussed in detail. The audit process involves a greater level of interaction with staff, site visits and documentation review.

How is an audit of risky operations carried out in the construction sector?

A high-risk operations safety audit is an in-depth analysis of hazardous activity controls and the effectiveness of existing safety initiatives related to the prevention of serious injury. The audit is a quantified and personalized approach, which compares the current level of safety performance of the construction company regarding high-risk activities, against global best practices. A suitable and personalized approach is created in an audit report form, which meets the requirements of the organization. The findings of the audit will give the organization visibility into its position in terms of high-risk activities, identifying opportunities for improvement. This is then followed by advice that will help strengthen areas that need attention through recommendations, knowledge sharing and training.

The audit process requires the active participation of all employees of the organization. It is mainly divided into four key phases:

1. Management Commitment and Planning
2. Implementation and operation
3. Performance monitoring and measurement
4. Evaluation and continuous improvement

How construction companies can benefit from a high-risk safety audit

For companies with high-risk activities, such as the construction industry, the benefits of auditing can be both tangible and intangible.

Some of the intangible benefits of security audits:

• This can help create an effective hands-on learning tool on risk reduction for construction workers.
• A security audit can help provide a forum for identifying security risks, analyzing root causes, and implementing corrective actions.
• This can lead to increased awareness and positive behavior among workers towards safety.
• A safety audit can help improve a construction company’s safety record with fewer accidents, injuries, near-misses and physical hazards.
• It can facilitate root cause analysis and corrective actions to eliminate hazards.
• An audit can lay the foundation for on-the-job training for supervisors and construction workers.

Some of the tangible benefits of security audits

• A detailed checklist covering the items can be prepared according to industry standards.
• It can help define the process with pre-audit meetings to review the checklist, answer questions, and develop management-facilitated audit routes.
• Safety risks and corrective actions can be documented.
• Post-audit discussions can be reviewed for hazard findings and corrective actions.
• Post-audit corrective action meetings can be held to review progress, answer questions, and ensure safety findings are addressed.

Construction companies should make safety auditing of high-risk operations a priority. A comprehensive and thorough audit will help assess and address potential high-risk areas and provide opportunities to improve and strengthen them in line with best practices.

A high-risk safety audit helps build confidence in the safety system and its ability to prevent injuries and fatalities. This will help management understand high-risk areas of work and situations that could cause serious harm and the control that needs to be taken. Overall, a security audit for high-risk operations will help create a happy, confident, and safe work environment for everyone.

It’s not a good time for prohibitionists. Cannabis – which has often been the subject of unsound laws and discriminatory enforcement – ​​is increasingly being decriminalized or legalized in many US states. Psychedelics such as psilocybin have been the subject of extensive academic research due to their potentially profound effects in the treatment of mental health disorders. Such changes suggest a path towards the gradual reintroduction of drugs whose use has long been strictly prohibited.

Alcohol, the original target of prohibition, has not experienced a similar renaissance. The effects of alcohol on mental health, at least in the medium to long term, are almost universally considered neutral at best and profoundly destructive at worst. Nevertheless, there has been no serious attempt to revive alcohol prohibition, a movement that enjoyed widespread support in the United States less than a century ago.

It is worth asking, at this time, why anyone was ever drawn to the particular institution of prohibition in the first place.

A recent book Breaking down the liquor machine by Mark Lawrence Schrad, recalls that the reputation of prohibition as a fundamentally conservative movement is erroneous. In fact, prohibition and the temperance movement that motivated it was a worldwide progressive movement against those who profited from the misfortune of others. If the practice of prohibition has not always corresponded to these noble ideals, it is worth recalling these motivations. (Some have recalled the impact of Prohibition in the United States as far more beneficial than we remember.)

It is also worth considering, when assessing the history of drug and alcohol policy, the place of addiction in these discussions. Different understandings of addiction can provide very different perspectives on these policy debates.

A traditional view is that addiction is a kind of moral failure. Unlike most people, who moderate their use of substances such as alcohol, the addicted person consumes these substances inordinately, seemingly without regard for the harm they may cause to themselves or others. Such behavior struck many people as a form of immorality and caused them to view addiction through a moral lens.

If you think of addiction in this way, prohibition may seem like a natural policy measure. After all, one of the activities of the state is to prohibit and impose criminal penalties for immoral behavior such as murder and theft. If substance use is, at least for some people, just another form of immoral behavior, it may seem logical to ban it as well.

Almost all experts now reject this moral model of addiction. Instead, many prefer a medical model of addiction, in which addiction is understood as a chronic disease. From this point of view, the prohibition of alcohol or other drugs may seem perverse. If drug or alcohol use is a symptom of a disease, it seems foolish to ban it, just as foolish to ban the symptoms of diabetes.

Thus, the medical model of addiction has tended to be associated with a hostility to prohibition. In the medical model, the appropriate places to address addictions are hospitals and clinics, not courtrooms and jails. Prohibition, from this perspective, is based on an outdated and unnecessary understanding of addiction.

Thus, the moral model seems to encourage prohibition, while the medical model seems to discourage it. I argued that both models are wrong: addiction is not a moral flaw, but neither is it a purely medical condition like a disease. Rather, addiction is a disability – like blindness or deafness – a condition that can benefit from medical treatment but should not be defined by it.

Addicted people face certain forms of limitations, due both to their own actions and to social discrimination, and addiction policy must aim to accommodate them, just as we accommodate blind or deaf people.

When addiction is understood in this way, what about prohibition? I believe the answer is not clear. On the one hand, prohibition can be extremely detrimental to drug addicts, especially when accompanied by severe criminal penalties. Certainly, one model of disability suggests that decriminalizing substances, at least for those who use them, is the sensible approach.

In contrast, prohibition reduces consumption and the worst consequences of addiction. Addicts are no less rational than anyone else and they reduce their use when drugs or alcohol are not available. (This, by the way, is another reason to be wary of the idea that addiction is a disease or a compulsion). From this perspective, prohibition is actually a form of accommodation: it makes the world more livable for people prone to substance use disorders.

As an advocate of the disabled model of addiction, I am less concerned with advocating a particular answer to the question of prohibition than with making a proposal for how these debates should be decided. When deciding on drug or alcohol policy, we can’t just ask ourselves what would be best for most people, on average. Because people with disabilities often impose political choices that impose costs on the majority in order to respect the rights of the few.

Discussions about whether to ban the sale of alcohol should prioritize the fact that part of the population is prone to alcohol use disorder and ask first which policy would be best for them.

Likewise, current debates on cannabis legislation should take seriously the idea that cannabis use disorder can be a severely limiting condition and consider what measures might best address it.

Arriving at sound policy decisions about drug and alcohol use means taking seriously what is best for people who are addicted or prone to addiction and putting their housing first.

Recent South African official medical reports and national data on the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have indicated that since early November, when omicron was first detected, cases of COVID-19 have increased considerably. However, most patients had mild symptoms at worst, and cases are now down sharply. These observations differ significantly from previous waves, including those attributed to the delta variant.

Journalists also said that although people who were vaccinated and unvaccinated developed the disease in about equal numbers, most hospital patients were not vaccinated. And although the current wave of COVID-19 in South Africa is drawing to a close, experiences with omicron waves in South Africa could follow very similar patterns in other countries.

Contrary to this relatively encouraging news, some Recent tweets and localized reports suggest that some hospitals in South Africa have seen – or are experiencing – an increasing number of inpatients, with an increasing number of patients requiring treatment in intensive care units and requiring mechanical ventilation – a key indicator of severe COVID-19.

What we need to take into account in the South African data to determine whether omicron was responsible for the recent COVID-19 cases and deaths in South Africa is:

A review of official COVID-19 figures in South Africa from December 1, 2021 to December 21, 2021 shows that new confirmed cases of COVID-19 per million population have increased significantly from 63 to 303 (an increase of 380 %), while the total number of deaths only increased from 0.466 to 0.583, (a 25 percent increase). At the same time, the estimated spread rate of all COVID-19 infections (the R rate) has steadily declined to around 54% of the December 1 value.

Can we be sure that omicron has been a major contributor to the recent South African wave of COVID-19?

Some countries, such as the UK, have substantial national initiatives that monitor the changing genetics of SARS-CoV-2 variants and provide near real-time data to help confirm both variants in patients and map the disease. spread of COVID-19. South Africa, however, currently does not have a similar ability to sequence and track SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, substantial effort and resources have gone into monitoring omicron in South Africa, and the data this has produced is compelling.

Detection of the delta and omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 in populations, including the UK, however, is only part of an assessment of the possible impact of omicron. While sequenced viral genomes obtained from South Africa, UK and other patients show that the predominant omicron variant circulating in UK and many other countries appears to be very similar in genomic sequence, other factors must be taken into account in determining how omicron infections can develop. in regional populations and individuals.

Similar to other countries including the UK, South Africa recently suffered a significant wave of COVID-19 disease nationwide, attributed to the delta variant. Infections in this delta wave likely helped induce or enhance a substantial amount of naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Has the Delta Wave eased the omicron imperative for everyone?

The level of fully vaccinated South Africans is estimated to be between 26% and 46% of the population, with a significant percentage having received either Johnson & Johnson or Pfizer vaccines. Around 76% of the UK population has had at least one jab, with booster shots also on the rise. The demographics of the South African population and the immunization levels of the general population therefore appear to be significantly different from those of the UK population. Will these factors reduce the lethality of omicron for most of the UK population, and what could this mean for an individual?

What does this mean for the UK?

In the UK, from December 1, 2021 to December 21, 2021, COVID-19 cases per million population rose from 634 to 1,280 (a 101% increase), while the total number of new deaths from COVID-19 actually fell from 1.791 to 1.697 per million (a 5 percent decrease). And R has steadily increased to around 135% of the Dec. 1 starting value.

Patients with severe COVID-19 have two serious negative health effects. First, they can develop a disease of the respiratory system that causes patients to receive more oxygen than normal, sometimes with the added help of mechanical ventilation of a patient’s lungs. They can also develop a “cytokine storm” where a person’s immune system races up and causes damage. These symptoms are seen in delta variant infections and can lead to death or long-term health problems.

It is only when the aggregate data shows a lasting decrease in the course of these diseases in hospitalized patients with infections confirmed by variants of omicron, that we can be sure that omicron is less lethal than delta. The latest British Zoe COVID-19 study (an app-based study to support COVID-19 research) is encouraging, with one in two colds actually being an omicron infection.

On January 21, 2022, the UK Office for National Statistics is expected to release the latest current real-world hospitalization data on the severity of COVID-19 in the UK. These UK data should reflect most of South Africa’s official findings and show that in the UK population omicron causes mild illness.

Decision-makers and citizens rely on precise and clear analysis and advice through data to make the most informed decisions and conclusions. Countries need more time to fully explore omicron variant data before they can finally determine if omicron is less lethal than delta, for everyone, or if other measures are needed to protect people. sensitive.

Correction. A few percentages had come out: “… shows that new confirmed cases of COVID-19 per million inhabitants have increased considerably, from 63 to 303 (an increase of 473%)”. It should read “a 380 percent increase”. And… “the cases of COVID-19 per million inhabitants increased from 634 to 1,280 (an increase of 201%)”. It should read “a 101 percent increase”.

David Pryce, Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences (Immunology), Bangor University

This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The current pandemic has clearly highlighted human values ​​and the desire to coexist and fight together against the viral catastrophe which has struck the planet. Many rare exemplary examples of care provided by poor and marginalized people circulated aggressively on social media, inspiring many more to join in the good cause. Many philanthropists have committed a large portion of their wealth to the welfare of society. Normally non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or non-profit organizations (NPOs) seek donations for social causes through public or individual appeal or explore the umbilical link with various institutions in India / India. foreigner.

There are concerns that NPOs are using the funds wisely or not, although many are subject to social audits and follow well-established ethical standards and social governance structure. Despite this, these NPOs have limits in accessing donations and donors have their own inhibitions in channeling donations. A Social Stock Exchange (SSE) can address these limitations in a more structured format that can potentially ensure better pooling of funds for welfare. It can also help to bridge the gap between the “haves” and “have nots” in society, at least to some extent.

According to the World Bank, the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality is represented by the Gini index. It provides a good reference on the model of concentration of income distribution. It should be read on a scale of 0 to 1 where 0 is the worst income distribution – high income inequality and should tend towards 1, the best income distribution – the lowest income inequality. The higher the number, the better the inequality. Among BRICS economies, Brazil – 0.53 (2019), Russia – 0.37 (2018), India 0.35 (2020), China – 0.38 (2016), South Africa – 0.625 (2018). In this league, India ranks at the bottom of the scale. The best in the league is South Africa at 0.625 while the United States has an index of 0.41 and the United Kingdom of 0.35 on par with India. In this context, the SSE can be an effective tool to increase a better distribution of income.

1. Compatible step for ESS:

An ESS is a well-regulated place for the NPO List to provide an alternative fundraising structure – a one-to-many and many-to-one fundraising investment model. There is a lot of potential for SSE in India with a growing NPO base currently set at nearly 3.1 million and that number may grow exponentially after the pandemic. Many entities in the corporate sector have their own foundation entities to use funds intended for corporate social responsibility (CSR). The establishment of a trust or a company under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013 is allowed to undertake activities of public interest under its direct administrative control. Companies can also outsource CSR tasks to established social enterprises – institutions / NPOs engaged in CSR activities for 3 years or more. The total CSR spent in India is estimated at 246 billion rupees and is increasing. The transformation of the social mindset is evident in the way communities began to celebrate different occasions to experience the ‘joy of giving’. The establishment of SSEs can, over a period of time, aim to unlock large pools of social capital and encourage a mixed financial structure, so that conventional capital can combine with social capital to meet the serious challenges of the market. COVID-19 and its consequences.

2. Overall experience:

ESS are known to be well-regulated institutions that aim to bridge the gap between the social sector and private capital by providing a platform through which donors and investors can fund and facilitate the growth of social purpose organizations. . Brazil established the world’s first ESS in 2003, with the creation of the Bolsa de Valores Socioambientais (BVSA).

Since then, stakeholders in several countries – including South Africa, Portugal, Canada, Jamaica, UK and Singapore have institutionalized ESS. These small businesses have aspired to harness the resources of financial markets and private capital to tackle some of the most pressing social and environmental problems. But the road to ESS is not smooth. They struggle to establish themselves and to maintain themselves. Many of them are no longer operational due to financial and other structural issues. Only ESSs in Canada, Jamaica and Singapore continue to work. Compared to traditional exchanges, the number of users is low and economies of scale are difficult to achieve. Setting up ESS is not the only solution, but nurturing them with adequate prudential standards and regulations will be more important to ensure their sustainability over the long term.

3. Initiatives in India:

Following the announcement in the 2019-2020 Union Budget to set up small businesses in India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has taken several initiatives to institutionalize them. A working group has been set up by SEBI to explore the methods and diversity of ESS and how they can be structured. The committee submitted its report in May 2020 recommending the formation of SSEs for the nonprofit sector aimed at boosting development at the sector level. Implementing these recommendations can lead to the development of a dynamic and supportive ecosystem, enabling the nonprofit sector to realize its full potential to create social impact. The task force was followed by a technical advisory committee to shape the new venture. The group’s report found has been placed in the public domain for stakeholder comments. With such a thorough groundwork coming together well, the scene seems to have matured for SSE to find its way.

The shaping of organized institutions, such as ESS with its conditionalities and operational rigor, can accelerate ongoing philanthropic activities. Regularity of reporting, transparency, disclosure and sharing of research reports on the impact of the end use of funds can help NPOs develop as a critical sector to serve millions of vulnerable sections of society . The diversity and range of NPOs currently in operation and potential new entrants who obtain funds through small businesses can catapult the industry onto a growth trajectory that can make positive differentiation visible. It can ultimately improve the Gini index. Therefore, the time may have come for the debut of ESS in India.

END OF ARTICLE