Consolidating the current system in relation with sustainable development – covid19 crisis

Two and half months after the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in Italy, many questions remain unexplored or even unsolved. It could be useful to reinforce certain fields of research that could help the solving of the crisis, asking new questions to the concerned countries and the World Health Organization.

1) The top list of the struck countries by the coronavirus

Considering the numbers, we have now entered for more than a month in a phase where the data are statistically reliable, which allows to focus on more questions.
The first very surprising data is indeed the ranking of the countries (in the top list of the announced cases). Has anybody ever wondered why among the top countries, most of them were the allied countries? One thing is even more surprising. These same countries belong to the top list as well of the Gross National Product, which leads to ask the following question: How can the U.SA, Spain, Italy, France, the U.K and even Germany be so struck in number of cases whereas these countries are in the 12th first countries for GNP (which should mean they belong to the more advanced countries to be able to respond and fight against the coronavirus crisis?

This list of the top contaminated countries by the coronavirus is very surprising and it even lets suppose that something else, regardless of the virus, targeted those countries. Indeed, 11 countries represent 71% of the world cases of coronavirus and a bit more than the half of the cases (54%) belong to those countries: USA, Spain, France (including Monaco), Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada.
How can this be naturally possible that 7 countries concentrate the half of the coronavirus cases, unless those countries were targeted?

It has to be said that the situation is extremely unclear… and unfortunately, the lack of clarity started in China at the end of January.
The IMEDD was already doing research in January about the coronavirus, even before the official announcement of the official cases by China, because some uncensored information had been published in the early January by some French people who lived in China. Some photos had also been published by some European journalists in China who started to report on the facts, through the unofficial media. The World Health Organization had also done information, sent a warning and clearly explained that the coronavirus would be a threat for the nations. The information had been done, the IMEDD had found it. Though, nothing was reported by the official media, maybe due to the censure in China, but the truth is that some information was available from independent sources, that clearly showed the risks and situation.

In the same time, maybe in the late January, the IMEDD had found information from independent journalists who reported on a potential possibility that the virus had escaped from a laboratory in China, by accident or on purpose. Indeed, they were two hypothesis, the first was the contamination by a bat, the second, by a laboratory in Wuhan. The IMEDD had also discovered that there was also a war of information with China who accused America of having spread the virus. The thing is that the history shows that most of the big pandemics started in China, so why would it be different today?

The IMEDD has already mentioned it from its own observations in several cities of Italy. The Chinese people had locked down their shops and left from one day to another at the end of January (at the announcement of the outbreak in China, so a month before the covid19 entered in Italy), as if the Chinese from Italy had been told that something was going to happen in their host nation. Though, the first hotspots were declared in Milan on the 23rd of February. Why did the Chinese people of Italy close their shops and leave before the announcement of the outbreak?

Considering this lack of clarity on the “how and why of this outbreak”, the United Nations and the Intelligence and Investigation Services of each concerned countries listed above should investigate on the eventualities of:

  • a bio-accident in a laboratory with maybe the escape of the coronavirus
  • a bio-war mass crime with the coronavirus intentionally disseminated by a country, unless some evidences show the contrary.

At this stage of the affair, some investigations are needed, because there was, in these last months, a certain number of critical signs that should drive an official investigation on the origin of the coronavirus by the concerned countries. It has to be understood that this affair is very sensitive, and that the full clarity is needed to consider a liveable future.

Indeed, this world crisis reveals some terrible tensions between the countries that affect the entire populations of the concerned countries, creating deaths, shortages, etc… We are dealing with a crisis which breaks the lives of the people, because of a few people’s own interests, and it totally goes against the national and international laws of the concerned countries, that believe in justice and in Human Rights. This crisis shows a direct attempt to the Human Rights of the populations of the most affected countries. What happens today will have economic, social, environmental and psychological consequences that will last for years. It is not permitted to let some countries do whatever they want and put the rest of the world at risk. Financial compensations will be needed towards the most affected countries when clarity is done on this terrible affair of virus.

The IMEDD advises the USA, Spain, France (including Monaco), Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada to organize an international investigation on the origins of the coronavirus, uniting their forces, sharing information between the allied countries, and acting as one, to discover the truth as fast as possible. The sooner we know, the sooner we can preserve.

It has to be understood by all that the IMEDD is not a specialist in this kinds of investigations about “a potential bio-war with a virus and its consequences on the human rights”. This is why the IMEDD advises the United Nations and the concerned countries to investigate. Though, the IMEDD is a specialist in sustainable development, and as far as we know, a virus is not part of a sustainable development process and it totally goes against the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

2) The lack of sustainable development in China

Let’s be pragmatic and talk “Sustainable Development about China” and “the whole environmental, climate change and health crisis”. Let’s join everything to understand the sources that lead to this situation. It has to be said that even if in certain fields, China is able to be creative and inventive in technologies, its force is mostly to copy the others. In marketing, we call that a “follower” behavior and it enters in the scope of the strategy of imitation or the “Me too Strategy” (as an example, counterfeiting of the luxury bags, perfume, shoes… that directly affects the economy of the countries of the original brands).
Considering the quality of making and production, it is known, internationally speaking, that all the chains of suppliers are not virtuous either, which often leads to the poor quality of products. The security, sanitary or environmental norms are not always respected either, which leads to terrible risks for the final end-users (burning of the skin by textiles, breaking of the products…).
The origin and the traceability of the products are often very doubtful, as well as the quality of the safety for the workforce.
Then, if we consider the geographic position of China, it is obvious that each of its product exported around the world has a big effect on CO2 emissions and on the impacts on climate change. The researches during the lockdown in China showed the drop of the CO2 emissions and the improvement of the quality of air, especially in the industrial regions. The same has been demonstrated over Milan in Italy (a drop of the CO2 emissions).
Some other researches showed that the virus could be transported by the masses of air, or could even live on certain products.
The two combined, “buying from China” and “CO2 emissions” contribute to the increase of the risk of propagation of the coronavirus.
This is why, for the planning of the re-opening, the security, sanitary and environmental laws should be reinforced at the entrance of Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.SA to help reduce the risks at the lowest level.
Meanwhile, those three spaces should think about relocating their own production with the idea of “giving a normal price to a product regarding quality, security, sanitary and environment”. Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.SA also need to implement their Corporate Social Responsibility as a stronger economic and workforce space, relocating the productions and using their own workforce, while educating the population to consume differently. It now becomes a question of Society and Human Rights, the question being: do we want to buy a price (trashing the people and the environment) or do we want to buy quality (product, people, environment)?
The choice is clear, the countries now need to behave in full responsibility creating and buying quality.

3) The question of a progressive re-opening of the countries…

The countries need to think that this crisis is both sanitary and economic. With the coronavirus, a shock was made on a certain number of countries. This shock has some very negative effects, but it can also create some positive effects: the ones of creating more responsible rules at the entrance of the economic allied space with the goal of preserving the economies, populations and environment, because, we all need to realize that we had reached a terrible vicious circle before the crisis. So, the moment for Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.SA is not to think about the reopening considering the actual sanitary situation. From what we know today, a new potential deadline for new updates should be given by the countries, if everything goes well, on the 6th of June.

No softening of the rules.
The IMEDD has noticed that there is also in certain countries, a softening of the rules of lockdownIn Italy, some regions want to take the lead far too much on a re-opening, but it is obviously too early to do it. Preparing and being ready is a thing, talking all the time about the re-opening is not, in this moment, in the right phase of the debate, and it could even be considered as a lack of serious by the Italians, considering the national everyday number of new cases in Italy.

Reminder: how the different phases were triggered…
It has to be recalled that each country passed in phase 3, when they reached around 3000 cases at total in the whole country.
The phase 3 meant the decision of a global lockdown. Then, how can we talk now about a re-opening, considering for example Italy, that we still had on the 19th of April: 3047 new cases (the same level that triggered the phase 3 for a lockdown).

No global re-opening of the schools…
How can the situation of re-opening the schools can be presented in this situation of contamination each day? The truth must be told, if the growth of the curve was globally mastered, the epidemic is far from being mastered when we consider the number of new cases each day in Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.SA.

It can be understood that the children who belong to the families who are part of the useful workforce need some schooling solutions provided by the countries, but they need to be thought and only organized for those particular cases.

For all the other children, it doesn’t make sense to ask them to go back to school for this school year. It has been said and commonly accepted at international since the beginning of the global pandemic that the children could be a vector of contamination within the families. Asking all the children to go back to school would just increase the risk of having new cases within the families.
Also, it has to be thought that many children use the public transports to reach their schools. The public transports are not either an appropriate place to find the children in this period of coronavirus.
It means that if the countries have an obligation to provide solutions for the children in certain situations, the responsibility is to ask the parents who can, to keep their children at home and maintain the strict lockdown. The children don’t need to be bothered or troubled more by the considerations of some adults or countries. The safety of the children is the main priority, this is why the closure of the schools needs to be maintained for the rest of the school year (so, until the end of June or the beginning of July depending on the school national timetables).

Considering the point of continuity of education for the children, it seems that France shows an inequal system in its way of educating its children. The French children who are in the private schools have a continuity of education online with their own teachers, whereas some other children from the public schools are sent to online courses only and hardly have a contact with a teacher. So, instead of talking of re-opening the schools in the early May, an attention should be focused by France on providing an educative system that correctly works online with a right of access to a teacher for each child. This is part of the public obligation of France, a duty towards the French children. Not doing it would be attempt against the Rights of Education of the French Children.

4) The question of the economies of the countries for the progressive re-opening

As explained above, this coronavirus crisis gives the opportunity of an economic shock. It’s now in the hands of each concerned country to choose its destiny for future, knowing that the only one that can be afforded is having activities in phase with a common and protected environmental impactssustainable development.
It means that all the activities from the private sector that don’t go in the line of sustainable development or that create negative sustainable development impacts don’t need to re-open in future. The countries should take the opportunity of the crisis to clean their economies, by relocating the productions in the economic allied space, by educating their populations to another way of consuming goods and leasures, by taking care more about the social and environmental impacts of the economies.

This moment of crisis is like after the WWII when everything could be imagined for a new future. It’s important to take this coronavirus as a trigger for a better future, that will be more balanced for everyone. As said previously, the list of the sector of activities must be studied and shortened to the useful ones. It’s about reducing the scope of the authorized activities, quiting the world of a non-mastered development for a world of responsibility for the future generations.
The future competition must also be reduced. It will provoke a better quality and a better organization of the economic system.
The future economies must be prefered within the allied space composed of Europe, the Commonwealth and the U.SA, to make sure to guarantee the economic, social, sanitary and environmental norms, that should become homogeneous for the allies, following the principal of “the strictest precaution”.

Considering the re-opening of certain activities, the things need to be clear, as it seems there is a misunderstanding in Italy in certain regions.
When talking about re-opening the books sector, craft activities, it didn’t mean to open the local shops. This doesn’t make sense. This kind of re-opening will only contribute to a higher propagation of the disease in time. It also makes people think they can do more things and they reduce their vigilance to resist against the coronavirus.
The good thing to do with those sectors of activities is to authorize a “secure re-opening” of certain global wholesalers that exclusively work online (for professionals or individuals). Using the businesses online is the only way to reduce the chain of contamination of the coronavirus. The IMEDD invites Italy to go in this way of prohibiting the local re-opening of the shops for books or craft activities, but organizing, with security and health processes, the re-opening of online books, materials and crafts global wholesalers (not the whole sector, just the biggest brands that have in stock a large range of products).

5) Sanitary Research to undertake

In the countries listed after (the USA, Spain, France including Monaco, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada), a research should be conducted following the goal to study the profile of the new cases each day:

  • Gender, age
  • People who belong to the workforce: yes/no
  • People who stay at home: yes/no – if yes, date of lockdown + questions on the behaviors (shopping, frequency, etc… ) in order to find out where the contamination could have happened

After more than 2 months of lockdown, the question of the source of new contamination still remains important…

  • If most of the new cases are part of the workforce, it would tend to prove that a re-opening would be just a criteria of new growth of the disease.
  • If most of the new cases are people who are in containment at home, after 2 months, it would mean that there are sources of contamination through the essential supply chain (food).

This is why this reasearch is important to prevent the future diffusion of the coronavirus.
Meanwhile, the health structures should be reinforced to reach an acceptable and reliable level to respond to the crisis and save more lives.

6) The security controls

Considering the number of new cases each day in the concerned countries and the duration of the lockdown (which now overpasses the period of risk of incubation of the disease), it means that too many people are outside and get contaminated by the coronavirus.
The thing is that those people keep putting everybody at risk and contribute to the increase of the duration of the lockdown (which has been lasting for 2.5 months already for certain people). It is not acceptable that the countries need to slow their response at the level of the persons who don’t respect the law.

The countries lose more people, money and time because of a few unresponsibles.

The duration of the lockdown must be considered as if it was a handicap for the concerned countries. The countries need to be more severe in the respect of the rules, because the actual regulations, don’t obviously show a good result enough considering the number of new cases per day. Talking about a re-opening all the time, not doing enough controls just contribute to the increase of new cases. If the measures had been fully respected, we should be, considering Italy, in the decrease phase, though, even if the number of new cases has decreased a bit, the level per day is still very high, showing that the measures taken are not strong enough to eradicate the virus.

This is when we enter in the field of “the Responsibility and the Duty of the concerned Countries”If the will was to flatten the curve, the countries succeeded, but they remain far from success when it comes to eradication.
The common goal must be the total eradication. No country can satisfy itself of a decrease unless the total eradication is reached.
So the countries should now consider some stricter manners to master the propagation. The immunity of the population hasn’t been reached as previously thought, so the only way to eradicate the virus is considering some stricter measures, considering the origins of the profiles of the new cases each day.

The security controls are part of the Human Rights of the populations of the concerned countries. The states have an obligation of duty, do their maximum to eradicate the virus. Considering the new cases per day, the maximum is not reached yet. Therefore, some new security forces (police and army) should be sent to strictly control who is allowed to be out and who is not. Not doing those controls with great care only contributes to a longer duration of the lockdown, more deads and more difficulties for the countries.

7) The line until the 6th of June

Considering the situation of the crisis on the 19th of April, the following lines above should be followed by the concerned countries:

  • the investigation on the origin of the epidemic with this laboratory in China
  • the maintaining of the lockdown until we clearly see the number of new cases drop
  • no anticipated global re-opening of the schools nor of the face-to-face activities (just a few online useful global wholesalers)
  • the sanitary research: the origin of the new cases
  • the design of a future economy in line with sustainable development
  • the consolidation of stricter security controls

The date of the 6th of June 2020 is only provided as a day of update for the analysis of the situation. It shouldn’t be considered as a day of decision for a re-opening of the countries. We first need to see how the efforts made by the countries during the month of May go.