WHAT DO WE KNOW OR ARE CERTAIN OF ABOUT CHINESE BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR COVID?

Covid: Top Chinese scientist says don’t rule out lab leak Published 30 May Share Prof George Gao IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS Image caption, Prof George Gao By John Sudworth & Simon Maybin BBC News The possibility the Covid virus leaked from a laboratory should not be ruled out, a former top Chinese government scientist has told BBC News. As head of China's Centre for Disease Control (CDC), Prof George Gao played a key role in the pandemic response and efforts to trace its origins. China's government dismisses any suggestion the disease may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory. But Prof Gao is less forthright. ADVERTISEMENT In an interview for the BBC Radio 4 podcast Fever: The Hunt for Covid's Origin, Prof Gao says: "You can always suspect anything. That's science. Don't rule out anything." A world-leading virologist and immunologist, Prof Gao is now president of China's International Institute of Vaccine Innovation after retiring from the CDC last year. In a possible sign that the Chinese government may have taken the lab leak theory more seriously than its official statements suggest, Prof Gao also tells the BBC some kind of formal investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was carried out. "The government organised something," he says, but adds that it did not involve his own department, the China CDC. We asked him to clarify whether that meant another branch of government carried out a formal search of the WIV - one of China's top national laboratories, known to have spent years studying coronaviruses. "Yeah," he replies, "that lab was double-checked by the experts in the field." It's the first such acknowledgement that some kind of official investigation took place, but while Prof Gao says he has not seen the result, he has "heard" that the lab was given a clean bill of health. "I think their conclusion is that they are following all the protocols. They haven't found [any] wrongdoing." line More from John Sudworth on Covid Jul 2020: Wuhan, city of silence Dec 2020: Wuhan scientist would 'welcome' visit probing lab leak theory March 2023: Toxic debate over lab leak theory hampers search The virus that causes Covid, it is almost certain, once came from bats. But how it got from bats to us is a far more controversial question, and from the start there were two main possibilities. One is that the virus spread naturally from bats to humans, perhaps via other animals. Many scientists say the weight of evidence suggests that is the most likely scenario. But other scientists say there is not enough evidence to rule out the main alternative possibility - that the virus infected someone involved in research which was designed to better understand the threat of viruses emerging from nature. Those two alternatives now find themselves at the heart of a geopolitical stand-off, a swirling mass of conspiracy theories, and one of the most politicised and toxic scientific debates of our time. In the new BBC podcast we shed light on this difficult, but vitally important, question through interviews with some of the leading scientists from all sides of the debate - as well as on-the-ground reporting, from the streets of Wuhan to the inside of a high-security laboratory in the US. Prof Shi Zhengli IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES Image caption, Prof Shi Zhengli inside the laboratory in Wuhan A Singapore-based scientist, Prof Wang Linfa, was visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where he is an honorary professor, in January 2020, just as the coronavirus outbreak was taking hold. He tells the BBC a colleague at the WIV had been worried about the possibility of a lab leak, but that she was able to dismiss it. Prof Wang is a professor of emerging infectious diseases at the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, and collaborates regularly with Prof Shi Zhengli, a professor with the same speciality at the WIV. Long-standing friends, they are two of the world's top experts on bat coronaviruses - earning themselves the nicknames Batman and Batwoman. Prof Wang says Prof Shi told him she "lost sleep for a day or two" because she worried about the possibility that "there's a sample in her lab that she did not know of, but has a virus, contaminated something, and got out". But he says that she checked her samples and found they contained no evidence of the virus that causes Covid or any other virus close enough to have caused the outbreak. He also says there's "zero chance" that Prof Shi or anyone in her team was hiding the fact that they had found evidence of a lab leak because they were behaving like nothing happened, including going out for dinner, and planning a karaoke session. Now-declassified US intelligence suggests that several researchers at the WIV became sick in autumn 2019 with symptoms "consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illnesses". But Prof Wang tells us that he suggested Prof Shi take blood samples from her team to see if they had Covid antibodies in January 2020. He says she followed his advice and all the tests were negative. Huanan Seafood Market IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES Image caption, Huanan Seafood Market Prof Wang is one of a group of scientists who believe that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the virus passed to humans in a Wuhan market. The Huanan Seafood Market - which sold much more than its name suggests, including wild mammals - was connected to many of the early cases, people who worked or shopped there. Although China has shown a marked lack of transparency, those scientists say there is now enough information, such as the data on those early cases and the environmental sampling in that market, to rule out a lab leak. In fact, such claims of certainty have been there from the start, most notably in a March 2020 paper which has become one of the most read and most controversial scientific papers of the internet age. "The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov-2" was written by some of the most eminent scientists in the field of virology and emerging disease, and it concluded: "We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." It helped to bolster the idea - that quickly became prevalent in much of the media coverage - that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory. But one of the paper's authors has told the podcast that he now has doubts about the strength of that earlier conclusion. Ian Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, has long-experience tracking diseases around the world, including in China, where he has built strong contacts. He was also the scientific adviser on the Hollywood blockbuster Contagion. Prof Lipkin now says ruling out any lab-based scenario in the paper was putting it too strongly. While he continues to believe that the market remains the most plausible explanation for where Covid came from, and does not believe the virus was deliberately engineered, he does not feel all laboratory or research scenarios can yet be excluded. And he volunteers a theory of his own, pointing to another Wuhan laboratory - run by the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control - located just a few hundred metres away from the Huanan Seafood Market. Prof Ian Lipkin Image caption, Prof Ian Lipkin It was known to be involved in the collection of thousands of blood and faecal samples from wild bats, research that was sometimes done without wearing proper protective equipment, according to Chinese news reports - a clear infection risk. "The people who work there could have become infected while they're in a cave collecting bats," Prof Lipkin says, adding that he was not aware of the lab and its work when he co-wrote the March 2020 paper. Prof Lipkin says that further analysis pointing to the Huanan Seafood Market as the origin of the virus - including recent research focused on evidence of raccoon dogs at the market - does not resolve the origin question. The virus, he says, could have "originated outside of the market and been amplified in the market". Short presentational grey line On the surface, Prof Gao's comments about not ruling out a lab leak appear seriously at odds with China's publicly stated position. Risky even. "The so-called 'lab leak' is a lie created by anti-China forces. It is politically motivated and has no scientific basis," reads a statement provided by the Chinese embassy in the UK. But looked at another way, there may be more common ground than it seems. In its propaganda, the Chinese government has been pushing a strange, unsubstantiated third theory of its own. The virus, it says, didn't come from the lab or the market but may have been brought into the country on frozen food packaging. The Chinese government says it rules out both the lab and the market - and Prof Gao's comments could simply be seen as the more scientific version of that position, because he rules out neither. Both are based on that idea of a lack of evidence. "We really don't know where the virus came from… the question is still open," Prof Gao tells the BBC. Short presentational grey line Scientists dispute - sometimes bitterly - whether the question really is still open. But, outside China at least, there is broad agreement on one thing: China has not done enough to look for evidence or share it. Though it may seem like a simple question, it's anything but. Where did Covid come from? For every life lost, for everyone who's suffered and for those who continue to suffer, the answer matters. The Fever: The Hunt for Covid's Origin podcast is available on BBC Sounds.

HOW TO KEEP MUSCLE AS YOU AGE

LOSING BODY MUSCLE IS AN ISSUE THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES, BUT THIS BECOMES PARETICULARLY NOTICEABLE AS WE AGE READ THIS ARTICLE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-keep-muscles-strong-as-you-age/

LESSONS LEARNED FROM RUSSIAN UK WAR +VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQuh6eo1go8

ASYLUM SEEKERS 2023 BRITISH SITUATION

Britain’s tough asylum plans are held up in court and by the Lords Rishi Sunak will push on with efforts to “stop the boats”

Migrants travel in an inflatable boat across the English Channel. image: getty images Jul 4th 2023 Share Rishi sunak’s ambition to “stop the boats” has hit rough water. On June 29th the Court of Appeals ruled that his government’s solution to the problem of asylum-seekers crossing the English Channel in flimsy dinghies—packing some off to Rwanda—was illegal. In the following week the House of Lords put fresh dents in his other plan, the legislation that would allow this to happen. The Illegal Migration Bill, which Parliament’s upper chamber is considering, would render inadmissible asylum claims by those who reach Britain in this way and allow the government to detain and deport them. Both plans are flawed, as their bumpy passage suggests. Even if the Rwanda scheme were allowed to go ahead it would achieve little: the government in Kigali has said it could only take 200 asylum-seekers initially. Last year 46,000 people crossed the Channel in small boats and a bigger tally is expected this year. The Illegal Migration Bill, meanwhile, has so many defects it seems largely unworkable. Many of those who enter Britain in small boats are asylum-seekers who can legitimately expect to be recognised as refugees under the terms of the Refugee Convention, to which Britain is a signatory. Among those who arrived in small boats in 2022 nearly half came from just five countries: within that group, of those who have seen a decision made, well over four-fifths were granted asylum. It is unclear where the government would send such people. International law forbids returning asylum-seekers to countries deemed unsafe. Britain does not have a returns agreement with France. It has no other agreement with a third country that would be considered safe. On June 28th, prompted by concerns that the government might violate international law, the Lords passed a cross-party amendment which would mean the bill could not “require that British officials, ministers or His Majesty’s judges breach precious international treaties”. Days later the Lords voted to add to the bill new protections for some groups of asylum-seekers. They include stricter time limits for the detention of children and pregnant women. The bill will go back to the Commons, which could overturn some or all the Lords’ amendments. The government’s small-boats policy is thus being slowed, but not permanently blocked. The government might prevail on Rwanda. The court’s judgment was made on narrow grounds. Two of the three judges considered the scheme illegal because deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system could mean people would be sent to their (unsafe) home countries. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, disagreed. Yet all three accepted that Rwanda had given assurances in good faith. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, as seems likely, the scheme may get a green light. The policy may have become less popular with Conservative mps, though, after the Home Office pointed out it would cost around £169,000 ($215,000) to send a migrant to a safe third country: £63,000 more than processing them in Britain. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the government this may nonetheless pave the way to find other safe countries to accept asylum seekers. The migration bill may yet become law. But it would probably not change much. Britain would still be expected to process the claims of those who come from countries to which they cannot be returned. “The most likely outcome is an ever-growing perma-backlog of undecided asylum cases combined with increasing numbers of refugees disappearing from Home Office records because they have no incentive to stay in touch,” says Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister. The government must hope that its plans will at least go down well with voters who want tough talk on asylum and migration. They constitute around a third of the electorate, says Sunder Katwala of British Future, a think-tank. About the same share of voters object to the government’s plans on principle, while the rest are somewhere in the pragmatic middle. In the short term the government might be content to blame the impasse on the courts and the Lords. “But by the time the election comes and the policy still hasn’t worked it will have upset all three groups of voters”, he says.■ For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in Britain, sign up to Blighty, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. Share Reuse this content THE ECONOMIST TODAY Handpicked stories, in your inbox A daily newsletter with the best of our journalism Sign up More from Britain Why right-wing Europeans are flocking to an English thinker The mystery of three grand Budapest cafes The NHS in England gets a plan for fixing its broken workforce Yet bigger changes are needed for Europe’s biggest employer The boss of Britain’s spies speaks Sir Simon Gass explains what his team got right—and wrong Subscribe Group subscriptions Reuse our content The Trust Project Help and contact us Keep updated Published since September 1843 to take part in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.” The Economist About Advertise Press centre The Economist Group The Economist Group Economist Intelligence Economist Impact Economist Events Working Here Economist Education Courses Which MBA? Executive Jobs Executive Education Navigator Terms of Use Privacy Cookie Policy Manage Cookies Accessibility Modern Slavery Statement

DIGITAL PAYMENTS

AS WE GO MORE AND MORE ON LINE, THIS ARTICLE IS WORTH A READ As payments systems go digital, they are changing global finance The fight over payments systems is hotting up around the world. There may be surprising winners, says Arjun Ramani May 15th 2023 Share Payment is one of the most fundamental economic activities. To buy anything, you need something the seller wants. One option is barter, but that is beset by friction (what are the chances of having something your counterparty wants at any exact moment?). Early forms of money, from cowrie shells to beads to metal coins, offered a solution: they were always in demand to settle transactions. But they came with their own problems, from counterfeiting and delay to not having enough when needed (illiquidity). The use of credit for trade, first recorded in Mesopotamia five millennia ago, changed the game. It provided immediate liquidity, boosting commerce, but it also required trust and verification, introducing a fresh set of issues. Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android. For centuries humans have mostly used physical objects, including cash, to transact. Banks were originally meant merely to safeguard commodities such as grain, rather than being linked to consumer payments. Later, cheques became tied to bank accounts. The first credit cards (Diners Club in 1950) and cards with magnetic stripes (American Express in 1971) started a broader shift away from paper money and cheques for retail payments. But they were mostly limited to developed economies and to affluent customers of banks, still the central nodes of finance. Now a new wave of digitisation, driven by the arrival of smartphones and the internet, is changing payments systems again. By making possible near-instant, remote payment, it massively reduces friction in the movement of money. This both facilitates trade from a distance and leaves a clear auditable trail. Digitised forms of payment can also become a basis for the provision of broader financial services, an especially important change in poorer countries with less developed financial systems. The arrival of digital-payment platforms promises to create new kings of the highly lucrative global payments system, which recorded some $2.1trn in revenues in 2021. Out with lumbering banks, expensive credit cards and grimy physical cash, it suggests. Instead, in with flashy crypto protocols, seamless fintech wallets and even digital central-bank money. Some of the excitement around this has been excessive. But this special report argues that the system of moving money around is indeed undergoing massive change. The share of cash-based transactions is plummeting, having fallen by an average of 25 percentage points in the world’s main markets from 2011 to 2021. Emerging economies are seeing some of the biggest drops (see chart). Digitisation is a big part of this shift away from cash. Various systems are emerging around the world, each with its advantages and drawbacks. And it is not always new fintech firms, digital newcomers or fancy cryptocurrencies that are leading the rewiring. Often, it is a combination of state-led systems and incumbent banks that are adopting new technology. Thus in India and Brazil, new state-sponsored payment platforms have become the dominant forms of non-cash payment, bringing hundreds of millions of previously unbanked citizens into the formal financial system. In the West the bank/card model has, despite its fintech challengers, remained largely intact even as digitisation takes hold. China’s closed fintech apps and new settlement system may yet spread across Asia and also reduce the region’s dependence on the dollar. Modern digital-payment platforms are clearly challenging the old order There are big implications in all this for relations between money and the state. Some governments may be using digital finance to help police their own people. The West may find that the spread of digital-payment platforms means it loses some financial clout. Frictionless movement of money may make for greater efficiency, but it could foster financial instability by making it easier for customers to withdraw bank deposits, a lesson seen in the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, which was preceded by a bank run. Just as with any new technology, digital finance has had its share of hype. But modern digital-payment platforms are clearly challenging the old order. Traditionally banks were the entry point to formal finance. Now payments through apps that use qr codes, fast payment networks and high-speed internet connections have become the gateway for many. As users begin sending and receiving money, the data that such platforms collect can help unlock other financial services such as loans and insurance. A good example is China’s Alipay, initially an escrow service for Alibaba’s e-commerce platform. Before this, notes Jack Poon of Hong Kong Polytechnic University, “You had to go to a street shop to buy video-game points in-person.” Alipay, which drew inspiration from the servicing of eBay by PayPal, a payments firm, boosted e-commerce by using smartphones and qr codes to scale up fast. Along with its counterpart WeChat Pay, it now processes some 90% of Chinese digital payments. “People look at you funny if you try to pay with cash,” notes Mr Poon. A payments upheaval As the world started going increasingly cashless, and with record-low interest rates making money in effect free, a frenzy erupted around digital finance in the summer of 2020. Hundreds of new crypto protocols were launched, and many earned interest on crypto-deposits of 20% or more at seemingly no risk. The market value of the cryptosphere grew to $3trn in 2021. China’s Ant Group, a payments and lending firm, began gearing up for a blockbuster listing at an expected valuation of over $300bn. By summer 2021 PayPal was worth around $350bn, putting it close to JPMorgan Chase, the world’s biggest bank, and Visa, the largest card network (then valued at $450bn and $520bn, respectively).

WHEN YOU USE A CALCULATOR TO DO A MATHEMATICAL OPERATION . , YOU TRUST THE FIGURE IT PRODUCES. CAN WE TRUST A.I.? ALWAYS? READ : Concerns about AI developing skills independently of its programmers’ wishes have long absorbed scientists, ethicists, and, of course, plenty of science fiction writers. But perhaps we should be more concerned about what it gets flagrantly wrong, sometimes with an alarming amount of confidence. The industry calls these screw-ups “hallucinations.” Scientists have discovred that a.i. has created a language that the machines creators don t know elon musk has even suggested stopping them for some time until we humans can know what they are doing .. this remidns me of a phrase i think MR CORTAZAR wrote some years ago : SINCE THE LAST ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO DISCONNECT US , WE HAVE GONE ON WORKING " SCARY, TO SAY THE LEAST PROF PAT GREY

A.I. ARE MACHINES FINALLY TAKING OVER FROM US ? CECILY

ZANNY BEDOES is editor in chief of the prestigious ECONOMIST MAGAZINE SHE SAID THIS IN HER LATEST ISSUE Read in browser APRIL 20TH 2023 The Economist this week Highlights from the latest issue ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor-in-chief I am fascinated and awed by the new generative AI models popping up everywhere. But I have struggled with how to think about them. Should we be excited or anxious about this fast-moving technology—or both? The abilities of “large language models”—of the sort that power ChatGPT, a chatbot made by OpenAI—seem to have surprised everyone, including their creators. One recently passed the American Uniform Bar Examination, a fearsome test of lawyers' skills, in the 90th percentile. Our aim with this week’s issue was to help make sense of it all. In a special, expanded Science and Technology section, our writers explain how large, creative AI models work, the ways they could go wrong and what capabilities they might gain next. They’ve done a superb job of describing complex concepts in a clear and accessible way, including with interactive diagrams in digital versions of the articles. In an accompanying essay we look to history—from the printing press to computer browsers—to understand how this technology might change the world. Our leader pages, meanwhile, weigh the risks and opportunities of AI. If you are a subscriber and enjoy this week’s deep-dive into artificial intelligence, you can sign up to our weekly Simply Science newsletter. The machines have not taken over entirely this week, however. I also recommend our deeply reported article on why conflicts are lasting longer. The escalating crisis in Sudan is shocking. Sadly, our analysis shows that it is part of a broader trend. Editor’s picks Must-reads this week Technology and society How to worry wisely about artificial intelligence Read in browser APRIL 20TH 2023 The Economist this week Highlights from the latest issue ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor-in-chief I am fascinated and awed by the new generative AI models popping up everywhere. But I have struggled with how to think about them. Should we be excited or anxious about this fast-moving technology—or both? The abilities of “large language models”—of the sort that power ChatGPT, a chatbot made by OpenAI—seem to have surprised everyone, including their creators. One recently passed the American Uniform Bar Examination, a fearsome test of lawyers' skills, in the 90th percentile. Our aim with this week’s issue was to help make sense of it all. In a special, expanded Science and Technology section, our writers explain how large, creative AI models work, the ways they could go wrong and what capabilities they might gain next. They’ve done a superb job of describing complex concepts in a clear and accessible way, including with interactive diagrams in digital versions of the articles. In an accompanying essay we look to history—from the printing press to computer browsers—to understand how this technology might change the world. Our leader pages, meanwhile, weigh the risks and opportunities of AI. If you are a subscriber and enjoy this week’s deep-dive into artificial intelligence, you can sign up to our weekly Simply Science newsletter. The machines have not taken over entirely this week, however. I also recommend our deeply reported article on why conflicts are lasting longer. The escalating crisis in Sudan is shocking. Sadly, our analysis shows that it is part of a broader trend. Editor’s picks Must-reads this week Technology and society How to worry wisely about artificial intelligence Rapid progress in AI is arousing fear as well as excitement. How worried should you be? ________________________________________ Related How AI could change computing, culture and the course of history Large language models’ ability to generate text also lets them plan and reason How generative AI models work How generative models could go wrong Forgotten conflicts The world’s deadliest war last year wasn’t in Ukraine Sudan is not a one-off. There’s a disturbing resurgence in civil wars ________________________________________ The art of interpretation How to explain the puzzle of the world economy Welcome to the Mona Lisa effect ________________________________________ The too-big four Why EY and its rivals may eventually break up, after all The commercial logic for splitting up the big four is only getting stronger ________________________________________ The car industry Everything about carmaking is changing at once The industry must reinvent itself to keep pace, says Simon Wright ________________________________________ Related Special report: The car industry Bagehot If English nationalism is on the rise, no one has told the English The rise of English identity is largely myth ________________________________________ Economist Films AI safety How to stop artificial intelligence going rogue Researchers are increasingly worried about existential risks ________________________________________ The A-Z of economics Our word of the week Fiscal drag A way in which inflation can boost tax revenues. In most tax systems, workers must earn a certain amount before they pay income tax, or pay it a higher rate. If those allowances are not uprated every year in line with inflation, workers end up paying more in tax in real terms when their wages rise. Read about how Britain’s tax take is getting bigger, but the country’s tax system is deeply flawed. • Find more definitions in our A-Z of economics We’d like to hear from you Share your feedback via the email address below. Email newsletters@economist.com Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here. This email has been sent to: cei@centroingles.com.ar. If you'd like to update your details please click here. Replies to this email will not reach us. If you don't want to receive these updates anymore, please unsubscribe here. Keep updated Advertising Info Terms & Conditions Help Privacy Policy Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2023. All rights reserved. Registered in England and Wales. No.236383 Registered office: The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT Rapid progress in AI is arousing fear as well as excitement. How worried should you be? ________________________________________ Related How AI could change computing, culture and the course of history Large language models’ ability to generate text also lets them plan and reason How generative AI models work How generative models could go wrong Forgotten conflicts The world’s deadliest war last year wasn’t in Ukraine Sudan is not a one-off. There’s a disturbing resurgence in civil wars