The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned Aotearoa New Zealand to urgently close the “alarming” gaps in measles immunisation, particularly among Māori and Pacific communities.

A WHO review last year found measles vaccination rates were at their lowest since 2012, and said the country was at risk of another large outbreak if those gaps were not filled.

Aotearoa eliminated measles in 2017, but saw a major outbreak in 2019 that infected more than 2000 people and hospitalised 700, many of them young children.

There are now 10 confirmed cases across Manawatū, Nelson, Northland, Taranaki, Wellington and Auckland, raising fears of wider community spread.

Only 72 percent of Māori under five years old are vaccinated, compared with 82 percent across the general population. To stop outbreaks, at least 95 percent coverage is needed.

Public Health Director Dr Corina Grey said the Ministry of Health shared WHO’s concerns.

“We know Māori and Pacific children are still missing out — that’s something we have to fix,” she said.

Serious risk
Pacific health researcher Chris Puliuvea said there is serious risk, specifically for Pacific communities.

“There is a 95 percent level where we need to be [with immunisation]. I believe we may even be behind the general population. For example, in the Bay of Plenty, vaccination rates are well behind other ethnic groups in that region,” Dr Puliueva said.

Dr Puli’uvea warned that measles can be easily spread.

“There is a serious concern at the moment. One infected person could affect up to 18 other people. The virus lingers in the air for several hours, which encourages spread. It’s far more infectious than COVID-19, and that’s a concern for our Māori and Pacific communities,” Puli’uvea said.

“I think what makes it also difficult is that you can be infected with the virus at very early stages and not show symptoms until four days later, so you could be infectious and you could be spreading it.

“Obviously it will take time to report that incident. So I think there is a serious concern at the moment, and the reason why I have this concern is why the vaccination rates are not where [they’re] meant to be,” he added.

Dr Puli’uvea said the lower vaccination rates among Māori and Pacific communities was a complex issue, although there are several reasons.

Key covid lessons
“It’s a difficult question . . .  key lessons from covid-19 showed us the importance of engaging with communities, particularly the faith community, and addressing misinformation and disinformation.

“That’s one of the inequalities.

“Other inequities are just excess people not being able to find time to go and get vaccinated over because they’re at work, or just lots of other things, finding the time to go and get vaccinated is one of them.

“The other thing that I’ve found is some people are not sure if they are immunised, particularly for those born in the 1990s onward,” he said.

Dr Puli’uvea encouraged families to vaccinate even if they were unsure about their vaccination status.

“With MMR, I simply encourage people to go and get vaccinated. There’s no harm in getting the full course again. It protects not only the individual but also prevents spreading the virus,” Dr Puli’uvea said.

The Ministry of Health has expanded vaccination access through pharmacies, GPs, and health centres, and offered incentives for on-time childhood immunisations.

“Every child vaccinated helps protect the whole community,” Dr Grey said.

They also explained that people can check records and get free MMR vaccinations from their GP, pharmacy, or local clinic.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The chair of a World Health Organisation (WHO) advisory group is urging world leaders to denounce misinformation around health.

Sir Collin Tukuitonga is reacting to comments made by US Senator Robert F Kennedy, who claimed that measles was not the cause of 83 deaths in Samoa during a measles outbreak there in 2019.

Samoa’s Head of Health Dr Alec Ekeroma rejected Kennedy’s claim, calling it a “complete lie”.

Speaking to RNZ Pacific Waves, Sir Collin said leaders had a duty to protect people from inaccurate public health statements.

He said he was “absolutely horrified” that the person who “is the most influential individual in the US health system” could “tell lies and keep a straight face”.

“But [I am] not surprised because Kennedy has a history of subscribing to fringe, incorrect knowledge, conspiracy theories, and odd things of that type.”

He said Dr Ekeroma was very clear and direct in his condemnation of the lies from Kennedy and the group.

‘Call it for what it is’
“I encourage all of our people who are in a position to call these people for what it is.”

Sir Collin is the chair of the WHO’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases.

He said Kennedy’s comments and attitude toward vaccination will feed the anti-vaxxers and and discourage parents who might be uncertain about vaccines.

“So, [it is] potentially going to have a negative impact on immunisation programmes the world over. The United States has a significant influence on global health policy.

“These kinds of proclamations and attitudes and ideologies will have disastrous consequences.”

He believes that the scientific community should speak up, adding that political and business leaders in the region should also condemn such behaviour.

He said Washington is a major contributor to the money needed by WHO, which works to protect world health, especially vulnerable communities in developing countries.

“I understand they contribute about a fifth of the WHO budget,” he said.

“The United States is a world leader in the technical, scientific expertise in a number of areas, that may not be as available to the rest of the world.

“Research and development of new medicines and new treatments, a large chunk of which originates in the United States.

“The United States falling out of the chain of surveillance and reporting of global outbreaks, like Covid-19, puts the whole world at risk.”

He added there were ‘a good number of reasons” why the move by the US was “shameful and irresponsible”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Qatar will not accept that mediation be a reason for blackmailing it, as we have witnessed manipulation since the collapse of the first pause and the women and children exchange deal, especially in retreating from obligations agreed upon through mediation, and exploiting the continuation of negotiations to justify the continuation of the war to serve narrow political purposes,” he said in the statement posted on X.

Criticism aimed at Israel
Commentators on Al Jazeera pointed to the criticism being primarily aimed at Israel and the US.

Senior political analyst Marwan Bishara said Qatar had been spearheading the attempt at reaching a ceasefire “for so long now”.

“Clearly, there have been attempts by a number of parties, notably the Israelis, to undermine the process or abuse the process of diplomacy in order to continue the war.”

Earlier, Cindy McCain, executive director of the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), said immediate steps must be taken to prevent an “all-out catastrophe” in northern Gaza where Israeli forces have maintained a monthlong siege on as many as 95,000 civilian residents amid its brutal military offensive in the area.

‘Unacceptable’ famine crisis
“The unacceptable is confirmed: Famine is likely happening in north Gaza,” McCain wrote on social media.

Steps must be taken immediately, McCain said, to allow the “safe, rapid [and] unimpeded flow of humanitarian [and] commercial supplies” to reach the besieged population in the north of the war-torn territory.

World Health Organisation Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has added his voice to rising concerns, saying on social media it was: “Deeply alarming.”

A group of global food security experts has reported that famine is likely “imminent within the northern Gaza Strip”.

Meanwhile, more than 50 countries have signed a letter urging the UN Security Council and General Assembly to take immediate steps to halt arms sales to Israel.

The letter accuses the Israeli government of not doing enough to protect the lives of civilians during its assault on Gaza, reports Al Jazeera.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The World Health Organisation’s decision to remove covid-19 as a global health emergency is the right move, epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker says.

The organisation said the virus was now an established and ongoing health issue that no longer constituted a public health emergency of international concern.

Professor Baker said the global status change made sense at this stage, but it did not impact on whether covid-19 was still a pandemic.

Covid-19 was still New Zealand’s number one killer when it came to infectious disease and people should make sure they were vaccinated and take sensible precautions, he said.

“There might be some scaling down in the international reporting of cases, but really it doesn’t make a difference to somewhere like New Zealand.

“It makes no practical difference whatsoever to how countries manage this infection.”

1000 NZ deaths predicted this year
Professor Baker earlier said that this year covid-19 was on track to kill some 1000 people in New Zealand and hospitalise around 10,000.

The threat of long covid also loomed — with one recent study suggesting as many as one in five New Zealanders reported lingering symptoms after their first infection.

He emphasised the need for caution in easing our few remaining protections.

The latest vaccine was one of the best things people could do to guard against the disease, because it included protection against omicron — the current dominant variant circulating in the community.

“You have to always think why the World Health Organisation assigned it [a global health emergency originally] and it’s really related to these certain criteria.

“It is about how severe and how unexpected [the disease is], but it’s really about whether an international response is needed and whether there’s potential for international spread.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared the covid outbreak in the Marshall Islands a Public Health Emergency.

A total of 571 new omicron cases of the virus were recorded in the latest 24-hour reporting period.

Three people have died and more than 10 percent of the population in the capital Majuro have tested positive, according to the Marshall Islands Ministry of Health and Human Services.

The WHO has declared the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

All schools will be closed for the next two months, just one of the measures under the government’s disaster management plan.

The number of positive cases has skyrocketed from a handful on August 8 to more than 1000 by the weekend.

RNZ Pacific’s Marshall Islands correspondent Giff Johnson said the outbreak had led to staff shortages at many businesses.

“Everybody’s operation is affected. I went next door to buy some drinks and the owner is doing the cash register … all cashiers are out of action with covid. The Post Office had to close down because so many people came down with covid.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Late last month, New Zealand Health Minister Andrew Little stated what most who work in health already know.

Healthcare is all about people – the people being cared for and the people doing the caring.

Population growth, ageing and a pandemic mean there is no shortage of those needing care, but in New Zealand and globally, there is a chronic shortage of healthcare workers.

Little stopped short of calling it a crisis, but researchers and international agencies alike agree with a survey of New Zealand doctors that the health workforce is in crisis.

In 2016, the World Health Organisation (WHO) projected a global shortage of 18 million healthcare workers by 2030. That was before the covid-19 pandemic. Between 80,000 and 180,000 healthcare workers have died globally during the pandemic’s first 16 months, according to the WHO’s conservative estimate.

“Public statements from political leaders that there is ‘no crisis’ in the health system have seemed increasingly out of step with doctors’ experience over the past year” https://t.co/dXMhA38XIO

— Emma Espiner (@emmawehipeihana) July 11, 2022

Add to this the impact the pandemic has had on the mental health of frontline health staff, including reports of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a healthcare workforce seven times more likely to have severe covid and now carrying the burden of long covid.

It’s clear healthcare is no longer the attractive sector it once was.

A highly mobile workforce and a global shortage
Like the cost-of-living crisis, the health workforce shortage is not unique to Aotearoa New Zealand.

This year’s budget included NZ$76 million for medical training and primary care specialists, but doctors who started training this year will not be specialists until 2034.

Meanwhile, Labour’s solution is to undertake an international recruitment drive. It is hailing New Zealand as one of the easiest places in the world for healthcare workers to come to. But are our newly opened borders attractive enough?

Overseas recruitment drive for nurses gains ‘good response’ https://t.co/RZrM4fW67L

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) July 13, 2022

In my health economics lectures I often use an anecdote about the Indian doctor who gets a job in the UK (colonial ties and a multicultural society), the British doctor who moves to Canada (less administration and more family friendly hours), the Canadian doctor who moves to the United States (specialists have much higher earning potential), and the US doctor who undertakes missionary work in India.

This highlights two issues: the health workforce is highly mobile and employment isn’t always about money. Aotearoa New Zealand is competing in a global health workforce market, and minister Little recently acknowledged the health sector as “fiercely competitive”.

But this isn’t a new phenomenon for New Zealand.

The health workforce in New Zealand has one of the largest shares of migrant workers, with 42 percent of doctors and almost 30 percent of nurses foreign-born (second only to Israel and Ireland, respectively). This is much higher than the aggregate estimates showing one in six doctors practicing in OECD countries studied overseas.

The OECD estimates the number of foreign-born doctors and nurses in OECD countries has increased by 20 percent, twice the growth rate of the overall increase across the workforce. This is what is most concerning.

The health workforce is not equally distributed. Migration of workers from low- and middle-income countries to high-income countries like Aotearoa New Zealand is a real threat to achieving universal health coverage and sustainable development goals.

New Zealand needs to be mindful that promoting our open borders is not at the expense of under-performing health systems with much greater need.

Losing healthcare workers to Australia
Outflow is also a problem in New Zealand, with New Zealand-trained doctors and nurses crossing the Tasman every year. Add to this the international recruits leaving New Zealand for Australia and there most definitely is a health workforce crisis.

As our nearest neighbour, Australia is aggressively recruiting staff. And like pavlova and Phar Lap they are happy to claim what is ours as theirs. An easier route to citizenship and voting rights will make Australia even more desirable.

How can New Zealand compete in this market? Minister Little refers to encouraging New Zealanders to return home, including lifting their pay. Research shows it’s not all about income. Location and professional development opportunities are important factors when choosing career moves.

The healthcare reforms helped tempt me back to New Zealand after 22 years away. Perhaps working in a system which has equity as its focus may encourage those who are clinically trained to return as well.

There is considerable research to inform policies around retention and recruitment. The New Zealand Ministry of Health may wish to look to the UK, which was historically dependent on EU health and care workers and now has a health workforce depleted by both Brexit and the pandemic.

In the recent LSE-Lancet Commission on the future of the NHS, British scholars argued a sustainable workforce needed integrated approaches to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and the skill mix, and more multidisciplinary working.

The LSE-Lancet Commission authors flagged the need for better workforce planning. New Zealand’s approach to workforce forecasting has also been criticised previously.

Planning aside, a possible solution worthy of discussion is the required skill mix of the workforce, particularly with technological advancements and changing health needs. For example, the introduction of non-medical prescribers has improved job satisfaction, released clinical time and increased patient access.

New Zealand’s once-in-a-generation health reforms offer a logical time to undertake workforce reforms. We need to learn from our own historical mistakes and avoid disconnecting the workforce from the policy reforms.

If minister Little and the ministry are to solve this, he will first need to admit there is a health workforce crisis.

Aotearoa New Zealand is unfortunately not alone in its quest to adequately staff healthcare, but the transformation of the health sector to create a more equitable, accessible, cohesive and people-centred system means New Zealand is uniquely placed to put those people who deliver care at the centre.

Dr Paula Lorgelly is professor of health economics, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tongan communities in New Zealand feel relieved to hear official information from the government of Tonga for the first time since Saturday’s eruption and resulting tsunami.

The Office of Tonga’s Prime Minister was able to send initial detail of search and rescue efforts and early reports of damage to the Australia High Commission in Tonga, which was then shared with the world.

Tongan-born New Zealand MP Jenny Salesa said the first information about what was happening on the ground in Tonga was a relief but also upsetting.

“It is really heartbreaking. Just reading the first official statement as well as seeing the graphic images. Tonga hasn’t yet fully recovered from some of the cyclones. On top of a pandemic, there is now this twin force of natural disaster,” Salesa said.

She had been in touch with many Tongans in Aotearoa since the latest news arrived.

“There is actually a sense of relief that there doesn’t seem to be many more deaths reported. We know as of now, three fatalities have been reported to date. We of course still don’t know the extent of the damages on the ground.

Communication hope soon
“There is some hope though that communication will be up and running pretty soon.”

Salesa said it would take years for the nation to recover.

Evacuation of people on the islands of Mango and Fonoifua to Nomuka — as well as people being evacuated from the west coast of Tongatapu and the island of Atata to Tongatapu — has been underway since Sunday with confirmation there were no houses remaining on Mango and only two houses standing on Fonoifua.

The World Health Organisation confirmed the main hospital in Tongatapu was functioning.

The WHO representative in Tonga has been providing regular updates from Nuku’alofa via satellite phone to his counterpart Sean Casey in Fiji.

“The hospital in Tongatapu is functioning and there has not been an increase in presentations. The Tonga emergency medical assistance team went out on the ship with the navy to the Ha’apai group and are able to provide immediate assistance if required there,” Casey said.

The WHO was lending its only satellite phone to Tongan government officials to use as well, he said.

Church support
The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints in Tonga is providing shelter to many residents left homeless by Saturday’s tsunami.

LDS Church officials in New Zealand have maintained contact with their counterparts in Tonga via satellite phone.

Pacific area leader and member support manager Hatu Tiakia said the church was actively assisting people on the ground.

“On the first night, over a thousand people used our church school in liahona, but that’s just liahona. We have probably in excess of a hundred buildings or more that’s being used now by the community for shelter,” Tiakia said.

“They go there during the night to sleep because we have water in general for those facilities, and they return to their home to provide cleanup for their communities during the day.”

Tiakia also told RNZ Pacific that aid packages were being organised to be delivered to Tonga.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark says the global handling of the covid-19 pandemic is marred with failures, gaps and delays.

Clark is a co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and is urging nations to spend less time debating commas in committees and instead get on with implementing the panel’s proposed reforms.

These include new financing of at least $10 billion a year for pandemic preparedness, and negotiations on a global pandemic treaty.

Clark told RNZ Morning Report the wheels were in motion on the structural responses the panel had called for but progress was slow.

“The wheels grind slowly but they are grinding,” she said, noting that the World Health Assembly (WHA) would meet for a special session next week and the sole item on the agenda was discussing whether to begin negotiating a treaty aimed at preventing future pandemics.

“I’m quite optimistic that they [the WHA] will embark on negotiations — now what they negotiate is another matter, but the process is kind of under way.”

If the WHA decided to move forward with treaty negotiations it would be only the second global public health treaty, after a 2003 accord to control tobacco use.

Unequal global response
Speaking in London overnight, at the launch of a six-month accountability review into the report commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) and published by the panel, Clark criticised the unequal response globally to the current pandemic’s more immediate challenges.

“There hasn’t been an equitable supply of tools to fight the pandemic, despite the sincere efforts of many people,” she said.

“We’ve talked a lot about vaccines, but many countries have lacked adequate access to other basics such as diagnostics, therapeutics, personal protective equipment, and even oxygen.”

She told Morning Report the panel had recommended reforms that addressed those inequalities, including dedicated financing for pandemic preparedness and a redesigned “end-to-end” platform that could control the flow of essential medical goods in the event of a future pandemic.

“That’s quite a big ask and in many ways this will be the hardest of all the asks that we had because it does require confronting the current way that the WTO (World Trade Organisation) deals with intellectual property,” Clark said.

The issue of intellectual property rights was already a hot topic, she said, adding that India and South Africa were leading the change in pushing for “the waiver of intellectual property rights in the event of pandemics, including this one”.

More than 257 million people have been reported to be infected by the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus and 5.4 million have died since the first cases were identified in central China in December 2019, according to a Reuters tally.

215 new cases in NZ
in New Zealand, the Ministry of Health reported 215 new community cases and one death, a patient in their 50s At Auckland City Hospital who was admitted to hospital on November 17.

This took the total of deaths to 40 since the pandemic began.

Clark said a key part of “how to do better next time” globally would hinge on reforms required at the WHO itself and admitted the slow progress on deciding what those reforms should be was “frustrating”.

The next regular meeting of the WHO was in late May next year and that would focus on the reform programme, she said.

“While it’s slow and it’s frustrating and we’re coming up, at the end of next month, to the two-year anniversary since what was then a novel coronavirus – which isn’t now so novel – was first identified, the wheels are in motion on these structural responses.”

‘We’re by no means through this’
Clark told Morning Report the newest wave of covid-19 infections in Europe was “largely avoidable” and should serve as a warning to New Zealand not to let its guard down.

“What we’ve seen in … developed countries that are capable of administering a vaccine rollout [is] they then tend to throw out all the other measures,” she said.

She was scathing of images she had seen showing almost no one on the London underground wearing masks: “Can we be surprised that there’s tens of thousands of cases a day?”

She said both the WHO and the panel’s report advocated the ongoing use of public health measures in addition to vaccination.

“Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don’t be satisfied …

“In New Zealand, when you get to even 90 percent of vaccination of eligible people, don’t throw away the rest of the toolkit because you need it to control transmission among those who aren’t vaccinated,” Clark said.

“It’s a complex story but we’re by no means through this.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

While the covid-19 pandemic’s relentless cyclone continues across the globe wreaking havoc on economies and social systems, this book sheds light on the adversarial reporting culture of the media, and how it impacts on racism and politicisation driving the coverage.

It explores the global response to the covid-19 pandemic, and the role of national and international media, and governments, in the initial coverage of the developing crisis.

With specific chapters written mostly by scholars living in these countries, Covid-19, Racism and Politicization: Media in the Midst of a Pandemic examines how the media in Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and the United States have responded to the pandemic, and highlights issues specific to these countries, such as racism, Sinophobia, media bias, stigmatisation of victims and conspiracy theories.

This book explores how the covid-19 coverage developed over the year 2020, with special focus given to the first six months of the year when the reporting trends were established.

The introductory chapter points out that the media deserve scrutiny for their role in the day-to-day coverage that often focused on adversarial issues and not on solutions to help address the biggest global health crisis the world has seen for more than a century.

In chapter 2, co-editor Dr Kalinga Seneviratne, former head of research at the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (AMIC) takes a comprehensive look at how the blame game developed in the international media with a heavy dose of Sinophobia, and how between March and June 2020 a global propaganda war developed.

He documents how conspiracy theories from both the US and China developed after the virus started spreading in the US and points out some interesting episodes that happened in the US in 2019 that may have vital relevance for the investigation of the origins of the virus.

Attacks on WHO
The attacks on the World Health Organisation (WHO), particularly by the former Trump administration, are well documented with a timeline of how WHO worked on investigating the virus in its early stages with information provided from China.

The chapter also discusses the racism that underpinned the propaganda war, especially from the West, which led to the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s controversial call for an “independent” inquiry into the origins of the pandemic that riled China.

“The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the inadequacies and inequalities of the globalised world. In an information-saturated society, it has also laid bare many political economy issues especially credibility of news, dangers of misinformation, problems of politicisation, lack of media literacy, and misdirected government policy priorities,” argues co-editor Sundeep Muppidi, professor of communications at the University of Hartford in the US.

“This book explores the implications of some of these issues, and the government response, in different societies around the world in the initial periods of the pandemic.”

In chapter 3, Muppidi examines specifically the US media coverage of covid-19 and he explores the “othering” of the blame related to failures and non-performances from politicians, governments and media networks themselves.

Yun Xiao and Radika Mittal, writing about a study they have done on the coverage in The New York Times during the early months of the covid-19 pandemic, argue that unsubstantiated criticism of governance measures, lack of nuance and absence of alternative narratives is indicative of a media ideology that strengthens and embeds the process of “othering”.

Ankuran Dutta and Anupa Goswani from Gauhati University in Assam, India, analyse the coverage of the covid-19 crisis in five Indian newspapers using 10 key words. They argue that the Indian media coverage could be seen as what constitutes “Sinophobia” with some mainstream media even calling it the “Wuhan Virus”.

Historical background
They trace the historical background to India’s anti-China nationalism, and show how it has been reflected in the covid-19 coverage, especially after India became one of the world’s hotspots.

“This Sinophobia hasn’t much impacted on the government policy; rather it has tightened its nationalist sentiments promoting Indian vaccines over the Chinese.” They say the Indian media’s Sinophobia has abated after the delta variant hit India.

“The narrative concerning covid-19 has taken a sharp turn bringing out the loopholes of the government’s inability to sustain its vigilance against the virus,” he notes, adding, ‘considering the global phobia concerning the delta variant put India in a tight spot and India has to defend itself from its newfound identity of being the primary source of this seemingly untameable variant.”

Zhang Xiaoying from the Beijing Foreign Studies University and Martin Albrow from the University of Wales explain what they call the “Moral Foundation of the Cooperative Spirit” in chapter 4.

Drawing on Chinese philosophical traditions—Confucianism, Daoism and Mohism—they argue that the “cooperative spirit” enshrined in these philosophies is reflected in the Chinese media’s coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early stages. Taking examples from the Chinese media—Xinhua, China Daily, Global Times and CGTN—they emphasise that the Chinese media has promoted international cooperation rather than indulge in blame games or politicising the issue.

This chapter provides a good insight into Chinese thinking when it comes to journalism.

Chapters on Sri Lanka and New Zealand examine how positive coverage in the local media of the governments’ initially successful handling of the covid-19 pandemic has contributed to emphatic election victories for the ruling parties.

Hit on NZ media industry
David Robie, founding director of Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre, explains in his chapter how New Zealand’s magazine sector was devastated by the pandemic lockdowns and economic downturn, although enterprising buy-outs and start-ups contributed to a recovery.

He points out that a year later, in April 2021, Media Minister Kris Faafoi, himself a former journalist, announced a NZ$50 million plan to help the media industry deal with its huge drop in income, because, as he says, Facebook and Google were instrumental in drawing advertising revenue away from local media players.

The chapter from Bangladesh offers a depressing picture of the social issues that came up as the virus spread, such as the stigmatisation and rejection of returning migrant worker who have for years provided for families back home, and how old people were abandoned by their families when they were suspected of having contacted the virus.

The chapter gives a clear illustration of how the adversarial reporting culture of the media impacts negatively on the community and its social fabrics.

But, the chapter’s author, Shameem Reza, communications lecturer at Dhaka University, says that when the second outbreak started in March 2021, he observed a shift in the media coverage of covid-19 pandemic.

Now, the stories are more about harassment and discrimination, such as migrant workers facing hurdles to access vaccine; uncertainty over confirming air tickets and flights for their return; and facing risk of losing jobs and becoming unemployed. Thus, now the media coverage particularly includes ordinary peoples’ suffering.

Reza believes that the initial stigmatisation of victims, had influenced social media coverage of harassment, and “changed agendas in the public sphere”.

Lack of skills, knowledge
The authors argue in the chapter on the Philippines that the covid-19 coverage exposed the “lack of skills and knowledge in reporting on health issues”. Said a senior newspaper editor, “in the past, whenever there were training opportunities on science or health reporting, we’d send the young reporters to give them the chance to go out of the newsroom. Now we know we should have sent editors and senior reporters.”

In the concluding chapter, Seneviratne and Muppidi discuss various social and economic issues that should be the focus of the coverage as the world recovers from the covid-19 pandemic that reflects the inequalities around the world. These include not only vaccine rollouts, but also the vulnerability of migrant labour and their rights, the plight of casual labour in the so-called “gig economy”, priority for investments on health services, the power of Big Tech and many others.

This book is an attempt to raise the voices of the “Global South” in discussing the media’s role in the coverage of the covid-19 crisis, explain Seneviratne and Muppidi, pointing out that there cannot be a return to the “normal” when that is full of inequalities that have been exposed by the pandemic.

“There are many issues that the media should be mindful of in reporting the inevitable recovery from the covid-19 pandemic in 2021 and beyond.”

Krishan Dutta is a freelance journalist writing for IDN – News (In-Depth News). An earlier version of this review was first published by IDN-News under the title “New book explores how adversarial reporting culture drives politicised covid-19 coverage and this version is republished from Pacific Journalism Review.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Facebook has today launched a public education campaign to help people in five Pacific Island countries and territories learn how to identify and combat health-related misinformation.

The locations and languages are Wallis & Futuna (French), New Caledonia (French), Tonga (English and Tongan), Solomon Islands (English and Solomon Islands Pijin), and Cook Islands (English).

The campaign, which follows an earlier launch in Samoa, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, will run for five weeks and includes graphics and videos.

The content is designed to encourage three key behaviours by Facebook users:

• Awareness – Be informed that misinformation exists
• Investigation – Find out more to confirm if the information is indeed false
• Action – Visit the local health authority to get accurate information

Mia Garlick, director of public policy for Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands, says: “One of our commitments is to connect people to reliable information, and give people the tools to make informed decisions about the information they see on Facebook.

“We are extending our efforts to reach more people across the Pacific, ensuring they can easily compare what they see with official public health resources.

“We will continue to work with health experts including the World Health Organisation (WHO), and local partners, to make sure that we have the right policies in place to reduce the spread of harmful covid-19 and covid-19 vaccine misinformation on our platform.”

Throughout the pandemic, Facebook has worked closely with WHO to direct people to authoritative covid-19 information, and to do more to identify and take action to remove incorrect claims about the virus.

The campaigns can be found at:
Wallis & Futuna (French)
New Caledonia (French)
Tonga (English)
Tonga (Tongan)
Solomon Islands (English)
Solomon Islands (Solomon Islands Pijin)
Cook Islands (English)

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Precis: This article takes the WHO as an example to examine the difficulties for some international organizations in playing their due roles and tackling with the security threats of international concern such as a public health crisis of COVID-19. It is believed that an in-depth institutional reform is necessary for international organizations including WHO to adapt to the reset of globalization, the ensuing global challenges, and the transformation of global governance in the post-pandemic order.

Confronting the public health crisis as COVID-19, the existing global governance system has fallen into a state of partial failure, which is embodied in slow response and action of international organizations, increasing difficulty in coordination and cooperation between big powers, and the lack of leadership. WHO is clearly unable to coordinate national actions or to regulate behaviour and change prevention and control measures of various countries amid this pandemic. In recent years, the impediments to globalization, the rise of populism, the revival of nationalism and unilateralism allude to the inherent conflicts between international organizations and sovereign states. Disease is a non-zero-sum non-traditional security issue as its threat to all is undifferentiated. Since everyone is facing a common threat, international organizations that are instrumental for communication and preventive solutions should take the lead. But why some international organizations failed to function and why can it be hard for countries to utilize such platforms and work together? This article analyses that there are several major dilemmas restraining the role of international organizations, which are unlikely to be resolved in the short run. The following takes WHO in the pandemic as an example to explore its plight.

Difficulties and Dilemmas Confronting International Organizations

Above all, the WHO faces constraints from the sovereign states.

The first hinderance is financing. The most common way for all parties to play games in WHO is to influence the WHO agenda through financial leverage. WHO’s funding comes from two main sources: assessed contributions and voluntary contributions largely from member states and other sources such as philanthropic foundations and private sector. Assessed contributions have been a declining share of WHO’s overall budget in recent years, so the organization is increasingly relying on voluntary contributions. The trick is that most voluntary contributions come with explicit requirements and restrictions on their use. The only fund that WHO really has control and can flexibly allocate is about US$500 million a year in assessed contributions. WHO has been struggling to both invest in global public health and to cover its own operating costs. Take the 2018-2019 biennial budget as an instance, the total planned amount was US$4.422 billion (the actual implementation was US$5.3 billion), of which the assessed contributions were only US$957 million. As the biggest contributor to WHO, after President Trump announced a suspension for US funding on April 14, 2020, Director-General Tedros indicated that the US move would leave the organization with a financial gap that could interrupt the efforts to stop the coronavirus pandemic. When the greatest power takes an example, it is hard for others not to follow suit, particularly under the situation where all economies are suffering heavy losses.

The second is the recognition. As an intergovernmental organization, WHO has the legitimacy and capacity to act only based on state empowerment and authorization. In a broad sense, this “authorization” is also a recognition. A recognition of the existence and effectiveness of international organizations. Given the limits of human knowledge of various communicable diseases, WHO remains torn between taking initiative and being cautious in the event of an outbreak. After the outbreak of influenza A (H1N1) in 2009, WHO coordinated countries to take proactive measures and declared a “pandemic”, but was accused of “overreacting”. This was because H1N1 had been spreading all over the world, but the fatality rate was low. A joint report by the British Medical Journal and the Parliament of the European Commission criticized WHO for exaggerating the pandemic, causing panic among the public and triggering a global rush to buy vaccines for pharmaceutical companies to profit. After the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014, WHO was accused of poor early warning, ineffective prevention, and slow response. Critics claimed that the first Ebola patient was infected in Guinea in December 2013, but WHO did not officially declare an outbreak until three months later, when the virus had spread to neighboring countries. In this recent crisis, WHO’s status and value have been further weakened. During the present anti-pandemic process, the Trump administration continuously accused WHO of acting too slowly to sound the alarm about the coronavirus. A great power refuses to admit the role of WHO is parallel to not recognize and distrust the organization, which will inevitably impact the international organization’s authority and capability to act in its field. Facing public health threats, particularly from unknown viruses and emerging infectious diseases, WHO seems to be caught in a paradox: taking aggressive action to stop outbreaks before the situation becomes serious will be criticized as overreacting; and taking cautious attitude would be blamed for failing to contain the pandemic. The anarchy of international system makes international organizations have no coercive power in implementing measures. One of the authoritative sources of them is the level of expertise rest on knowledge. They hold the “power” to master data, publish information and set standards by virtue of their knowledge. Therefore, if a country questions its expertise, it can affect a range of the organization’s actions. If countries no longer use that knowledge as a standard, the authority of the organization will be undermined.

Secondly, the WHO is influenced at the systemic level.

First of all, international organizations are the product of globalization and multilateralism. In theory, the deepening of globalization should become a hotbed for the development of international organizations. In reality, nevertheless, globalization has deepened the antagonism between countries. We are witnessing more clearly the gap between countries and the changing political landscape within them. Some countries have risen in the process of globalization, while others have been divided in the process. Rising nations are more insistent on globalization, while declining nations only want to retreat. International organizations seem to become a burden no longer needed, living in the tension between the cracks. As a sub-agency of the UN system, WHO seeks to place health goals above power politics. But as an intergovernmental organization, WHO cannot avoid the shades of power game and geopolitics. As early as its establishment, the Constitution of the World Health Organization was delayed by the ratification of member states due to the confrontation between two camps of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was not until the outbreak of cholera in Egypt’s Suez Canal area that countries realized the importance of establishing a global public health organization and passed the Constitution in 1948. With the launch of the Marshall Plan, the eastern and western camps entered a period of fierce confrontation. In 1949, the Soviet Union led the Eastern European countries withdraw from WHO. In order to maintain the integrity of global public health system, then Director-General George Brock Chisholm retained the membership of the Soviet Union and other countries on the ground that there was no opt-out clause in the Constitution, so that the Soviet Union was able to rejoin in 1958.

Second, the new world pattern is evolving, and some countries are inclined to politicize global issues. The alleged politicization of health issues refers to use health issues as a tactic to pursue political goals. The introduction of political issues into WHO by some countries led to the dysfunction and overloading of the mechanism beyond WHO’s jurisdiction and weakened its original purpose of promoting public health. When Trump halted funding for WHO, he also expressed his dissatisfaction and anger at WHO’s repeated praise for China’s anti-epidemic efforts. He believes that the U.S. is investing a lot of money, but WHO is ultimately standing up for China. International organizations do not necessarily choose sides, but their support for one country in a certain area may be regarded as a preference to be resisted by the other party. WHO, in this case, is unwittingly entering the political gap between China and the U.S. Mutual recriminate and stigmatization, transfer domestic contradictions as well as shirk responsibility for the poor response to the pandemic aggravate the conflicts and frictions that already existed among member states, thereby result in the inefficient operation of international organizations. In this climate of mistrust and disunity, it is hard for all parties to act in concert.

Third, non-neutral rules of global governance are impacted. The current global governance system mainly relies on the rules formulated by western countries. However, these rules are non-neutral in the light of non-western cultures. That is, the meaning of the same system varies to different groups, and those who benefit from the established system or may benefit from some future institutional arrangement will strive for or maintain institutional arrangements that are favorable to them. Global governance rules exist upon intersubjectivity and only play a normative role if they are accepted by the majority. Non-neutral rules are difficult to promote consensus between western and non-western cultures. One consequence of this non-neutrality is that in the practice of global governance, the actual benefits or losses brought by different mechanisms to sovereign states are inequivalent. In an era when the developed economies dominate in the global governance system, such non-neutrality, while has always existed, is not as prominent as it is today with more and more non-western economies rise and enter the global governance system. This is illustrated in the case of COVID-19 striking big powers, as non-western actors are bringing their own practical experiences into the existing governance system, thereby shaking the governance structure dominated by the Western instrumental rationality. The concepts, principles and approaches of global governance begin to fall short in attuning to the reality of rapid development of globalization and the emergence of global challenges.

Lastly, the WHO has self-deficiencies in terms of operating rules and mechanisms.

First, WHO is already the largest and most authoritative international agency for epidemic prevention in the world, but it is still unable to play a leading role in this crisis. This is because international organizations and states are distinct in nature. States have sovereignty, while international organizations do not. Management personnel in international organizations are dispatched by member states, and there are no individuals independent of the state and belong exclusively to an organization. This makes it impossible for international organizations to operate in complete isolation from states. Additionally, an international organization is a platform where member states gather for discussion, vote to reach a resolution, and implement it. Basically, the consensus of major powers becomes the resolution of the international organization. That is, a balance exists between the views expressed by the representatives of member states within WHO. Leaders of international organizations has only the power to implement the policy. Taking the position of chief balancer, Director-General Tedros may be viewed as a consensus-maker instead of an authoritarian decision-maker. International organizations, whether intergovernmental or non-governmental, are coordinating bodies. Their decision-making power is limited. Whether member states, especially the big powers, have shared interests, common needs and collective policy orientation determines how much role the international organization can play.

Second, WHO has an “institutional inertia”. Its reform of governing structure lags behind the development of global health governance with its influence on the decline. Since 1999, the principle of zero growth has been introduced into the budgeting process of WHO. Consequentially, WHO is increasingly dependent on voluntary contributions and has shown a bilateralism in promoting projects, since most contributions are earmarked for specific purposes by donors. As some scholars note, voluntary contributions militate against multilateral governance and decentralize the authority of international organizations to donor countries.

All in all, from the perspective of internal factors, academics generally believe that WHO’s organizational culture is strongly functionalist, conservative, and increasingly corrupt in recent years. The failure of strategic planning and the over-decentralization of WHO’s structure render its internal system increasingly rigid. Moreover, there are issues of impartiality within WHO. As more and more information about WHO’s internal decision-making is exposed by the media, the fairness and transparency of WHO’s work are increasingly questioned. Many scholars agree that the financial interests of the medical experts who advise WHO on decision-making are intertwined with multinational pharmaceutical companies, making WHO difficult to be objective and neutral.

To date, no substantive breakthrough and sustainable progress have been made in any area of governance, terrorism, financial crisis, transboundary disasters, and climate change, etc. COVID-19 represents yet another failure of global governance. The root cause is the lack of international cooperation. In recent years, with the strong backtracking of populism, unilateralism, and power politics, international relations are shifting toward geopolitics, the sense of international responsibility and the trust of international community are declining. It seems that everyone knows the theory of win-win cooperation, however in reality, the spirit of cooperation is easily concealed, forgotten, and even deliberately abandoned.

Some Recommendations on Institutional Reform in the Post-Pandemic order

In the post-pandemic world, international organizations and multilateral mechanisms will face greater tests. Only through constant institutional reform can they adapt to a changing world order.

The first is to boost the leadership and appeal to perform the leading and coordinating role to full potential in global governance. The authority and expertise of international organizations are mainly reflected in the fairness and effectiveness of promoting international cooperation and solving global issues. This depends on the sufficient cooperation and support of member states on the one hand and on the strategic vision, leadership, and professionalism of international organizations from officials to staff, on the other. In response to global challenges like COVID-19, the UN needs to make corresponding reforms and adjustments. This would include convening relevant meetings at the earliest possible time to convey confidence to the world, unifying the goals of all parties, and drawing up global action roadmap. Specialized agencies under the UN need to carry out separate actions around their respective themes, update their own rules and norms in real time. WHO could be more empowered to upgrade the global public health governance system. The international community has had conducted some effective bilateral and local cooperation and gained positive experiences in the fights against SARS, H1N1 influenza and Ebola, but there is still a long way ahead to achieve global, sustainable and closer cooperation. It is necessary to improve the overall status of public health governance and reinforce WHO, so that it has more rights and higher international status similar to that of the IMF and the World Bank to organize experts and focus on scientific research, vaccine development and data sharing as well as help developing countries with weak health infrastructure to improve their response capacity. The international community has generally been underinvesting in public health. As of February 29, the U.S. was still more than half behind with its 2019 dues and US$120 million is defaulted for 2020. After the outbreak, the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund has been created by the UN Foundation, the Swiss Philanthropy Foundation and WHO, but similar efforts should be more institutionalized in future. Meanwhile, WHO must strengthen the institutional construction, such as build a global infectious disease monitoring, early-warning and emergency-boot mechanisms, further elucidate the rules and norms of public governance, formulate guiding principles that all countries must abide by, unify standards, and improve the control and binding force on relevant behaviors of various countries, but not limited to report information, temporary research and judge the situation. For now, though the role and status of WHO in global public health governance has been weakened to a certain extent, as the largest international health organization and one of the larger specialized agencies within the UN, WHO still has broad responsibilities to combat infectious diseases based on the Constitution of WHO and designated by its accession to the UN, as well as has the only authorization of leading and promoting effective development of international health law. Therefore, it is crucial to carry out effective reform of WHO. The direction is not “reprimand and denounce” by some member states targeted others and counteract each other’s efforts. Instead, it should be further enhancing the power of existing multilateral mechanisms, increasing financial support, and expanding bilateral or small multilateral public health cooperation to larger regional domain. For this purpose, the established China-Japan-ROK joint prevention and control mechanism and the public health cooperation within the ASEAN framework should be consolidated and then upgraded to the Asia-Pacific region. The European Union and the African Union should also act together and promote the integration of public health, and then on this basis, form the regional cooperation between Asia and Europe, among Asia, Europe and Africa as well as in a wider range.

The second is to strengthen the authority and expertise of international organizations. Globalization has never been entirely positive as a single-dimensional process. International organizations is the central force and the primary driver for global governance. The multilateral cooperation mechanism should include at least two functions: political leadership and advisory implementation. In the current international system, it is unrealistic to require specialized agencies to perform core political leadership because they do not have corresponding political authority and power resources. However, for multilateral organizations with rich expertise in a specialized field, it is the fundamental obligation to provide intellectual support and technical implementation for political decision-making. For example, the political leadership of G20 and the advisory implementation of WHO could converge and form a global action model to counter security threats more actively in global public health. WHO can gather information, propose professional suggestions, and provide a concrete scientific basis for the G20 to put forward global action plans. In this regard, G20 could be continuously elevated from short-term crisis response mechanism to long-term governance mechanism.

Conclusion

International organizations have accrued deep malpractices in managing global affairs. In the current COVID-19 and previous international public health emergencies, there are various difficulties in the operation of international organizations, confining them to take conductive actions, which in turn reducing the effectiveness of problem solving. The world seems to lack a consistent and coherent response in the face of a common enemy. A path of transformation should be explored. Only through constant change can international organizations be reinforced in the new order, otherwise it will be eliminated or replaced. However, we must also be aware that some curtailments are beyond the scope of international organizations and concern the whole international community. The reality of the COVID-19 has put the international community at a crossroads once again. Is it to turn the crisis into an opportunity and make the pandemic a driving force for community building through strengthening all-round cooperation and multilateralism? Or to reject international cooperation, shrink into a corner, and deepen the division of the world? Or to expand the conflict and make the outbreak a pusher of the law of jungle? The rational choice is certainly cooperation. COVID-19 is an acute crisis that not only takes a heavy toll on global public health safety, but also creates global threats to varying degrees in other fields through its spillover effects. Institutional reform needs the solid support of political will and cooperative consensus. Multilateralism is by far the most reasonable approach to global governance, and multilateral cooperation is the most democratic way to combat global threats. Whether global consensus can be reached and cooperation mechanism can be built out of the crisis will not only directly affect the success of anti-pandemic battle, but also have a far-reaching impact on the international relations and world order after the pandemic.

Pacific Media Watch

New Zealand is providing NZ$1 million to the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Suva, Fiji, to support its Pacific Action Plan for Covid-19 coronavirus preparedness and response.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced that New Zealand is partnering with countries in the Pacific to ensure they are prepared for, and able to respond to the global threat of the infectious disease.

“There are currently no confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the Pacific, but it is vital that New Zealand is working hard in partnership with our neighbours to ensure the region is safe and as prepared as can be,” Peters said.

READ MORE: NZ foreign minister delays Pacific mission

However, Fiji health authorities reported today that there were four people suspected of being infected by the virus were in isolation and Tonga also reported a suspected case.

New Zealand is jointly funding the WHO Pacific regional coronavirus response plan, in partnership with Australia, in response to requests for assistance from Pacific island countries.

The New Zealand government has also signed a contract with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) for countries in the South Pacific to send samples of potential Covid-19 cases to ESR’s laboratory in New Zealand for testing, free of charge.

Supporting the realm countries has been another focus of New Zealand’s preparations related to coronavirus.

“In partnership with the WHO, New Zealand has deployed a team to Cook Islands to support Covid-19 preparedness, with further joint trips planned to Tokelau and Niue from next week,” Peters said.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade media release and RNZ News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch

The World Health Organisation has pledged to “hit hard” against the deadly coronavirus

while saying there is hope and “we are not defenceless”.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he saw a “realistic chance” of stopping the outbreak.

“Covid-19” is the new official name for the virus that was first identified in China on December 31.

READ MORE: Earlier reports on the Covid-19 outbreak

“We now have a name for the disease and it’s Covid-19,” Tedros told reporters in Geneva, explaining that “co” stood for “corona,” “vi” for “virus” and “d” for “disease,” reports Agence France-Presse.

Tedros said the name had been chosen to avoid references to a specific geographical location, animal species or group of people in line with international recommendations for naming in order to avoid stigmatisation.

The WHO had earlier given the virus the temporary name of “2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease” and China’s National Health Commission this week said it was temporarily calling it “novel coronavirus pneumonia”, or NCP.

Speaking on the first day of an international scientific conference in Geneva that will look at possible vaccine options to combat the virus, Tedros also said he saw a “realistic chance” of stopping the outbreak.

“We are not defenceless,” he added.

“We have to use the current window of opportunity to hit hard and stand in unison to fight this virus in every corner.

“If we don’t we could have far more cases and far higher costs on our hands.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ News

A man has died of the Wuhan coronavirus outside China, and any foreign travellers who leave from or transit through China will be refused entry to New Zealand from tomorrow.

A 44-year-old Chinese man from the city of Wuhan, where the new coronavirus was first detected, died today in hospital in the Philippines, the country’s Department of Health has said.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has confirmed it is the first death from the virus outside China.

READ MORE: NZ evacuees from Wuhan to be quarantined at Whangaparaoa

The New Zealand government announced at a press conference this afternoon that strict travel restrictions have been introduced in response to the outbreak.

Any foreign travellers on their way to New Zealand when the announcement was made will be subject to increased screening on arrival. If they are cleared, they will be allowed into the country.

New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, and their immediate family, will be allowed to enter the country but will need to isolate themselves for 14 days after arrival.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade has also raised its travel advice for China to “Do not travel”, the highest level.

Public health advice
“Cabinet convened last night to discuss the most up-to-date public health advice, and recent developments in the spread of the virus,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said.

“We have been advised by health officials that while there are still a range of unknowns in the way the virus is being transmitted, we should take a precautionary approach and temporarily stop travel into New Zealand from mainland China, and of people who have recently been in China.”

She said the measures were critically important to protect New Zealanders, and to play a part in global efforts to contain the virus.

“I am particularly mindful that we are a gateway to the Pacific, and must factor that into our decision making,” Ardern said.

The US and Australia are among other countries who had earlier announced similar restrictions.

“We have been in close contact with our partners in the past 24 hours, and I have spoken on multiple occasions with [Australian] Prime Minister Morrison to ensure we are each aware of any changes to our systems, and the wider impacts given the frequent travel between our two nations,” Ardern said.

“The decision of the US to put in place similar restrictions to those decided by Cabinet has had a knock on effect in terms of travel, leading Air New Zealand and other airlines to stop their flights from China.”

Shanghai route suspended
Air New Zealand has announced it will suspend its Auckland Shanghai route from today until March 29.

Its service departing Shanghai Pudong International Airport shortly after 2pm local time will be the airline’s final flight on this route for two months. Tonight’s Auckland-Shanghai service is cancelled.

Air New Zealand said the suspension was brought forward following the increased border restrictions.

Ministers will be working with industry leaders to try to lessen economic effects of the restrictions, including on tourism, education and the primary sector, Ardern said.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ News

The first Australian case of Wuhan coronavirus has been confirmed, with a man being held under isolation in a Melbourne hospital.

News of the case came after Chinese authorities said they were treating 1287 patients with the virus, while the death toll has risen to 41.

The Melbourne patient is a Chinese man in his 50s who recently spent time in the city of Wuhan, where the deadly outbreak is believed to have originated in an illegal wildlife market.

He is in a stable condition.

READ MORE: Background on coronavirus – The Lancet

New South Wales Health has confirmed five people in the state are being tested for coronavirus, but none of those cases have been confirmed.

Two people were discharged after returning negative test results in NSW yesterday. A child on an incoming flight prompted a scare at Sydney International airport last night, but Sydney Children’s Hospital says the child was assessed and then released.

European cases
Europe’s first three cases were confirmed in France on Friday, with two patients being hospitalised in Paris and the other in the south-western city of Bordeaux.

On the eve of the Lunar New Year, transportation has been shut down in at least 13 Chinese cities with a combined population of some 36 million people.

At least eight hospitals in Wuhan issued public calls for donations of masks, goggles, gowns and other protective medical gear, according to notices online.

China’s government announced it was sending in military medics to Wuhan.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared the new coronavirus an “emergency in China” but stopped short of declaring it of international concern.

Symptoms include fever, difficulty breathing and coughing. Most of the fatalities have been elderly people, many with pre-existing conditions, the WHO said.

Thailand has confirmed four cases, Japan, South Korea and the United States have confirmed two cases each, while Taiwan and Singapore have reported one each.

Indian nurse
Indian authorities say an Indian nurse working in Saudi Arabia has also been infected, but Saudi health authorities say there has been no cases in the country so far.

Airports worldwide are screening passengers arriving from China, with the US warning travellers to exercise increased caution in China.

Hong Kong, which has two confirmed cases, is turning two holiday camps into quarantine stations as a precaution. Taiwan has banned anyone from Wuhan from going to the island.

Meanwhile, the Australian Federal government has raised travel advice for the provinces of Wuhan and Hubei in China to the highest level, due to the threat posed by the coronavirus.

The level four warning urges Australians not to travel to the region.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne said Chinese authorities had restricted travel in at least five Hubei cities and Australians going there may not be able to leave until restrictions are lifted.

Travellers are being warned that the level of assistance the government can provide is limited.

This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz