In the days of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the US has become the new foreground of transmission. 475,000 Americans were infected, with 18,000 fatalities at the time of this writing. But for a ‘non-discriminating’ virus, it is clear that wealth matters.
During the pandemic, wealth inequality within the US has been painfully clear: here we see a widening divide between the middle class and lower classes, compared to upper class Americans. The majority of those who are directly affected by the pandemic belong to lower-wage and front-line service professions. Hence, it is worth investigating how wealth inequality has evolved in the US, and the levers that can change it.
US
income and wealth inequality has grown significantly in the last few decades.
According to think tanks, the share of total income received by middle class
households has fallen by 21% since 1971; the share of total income received by
upper-income households has increased by 19% during the same period.
It
should be mentioned that middle and lower-income families are more dependent on
home equity for their source of wealth. In addition, the responsibility of
businesses has shifted to one that is more shareholder oriented. In the 1970s,
the ‘shareholder commitment’ objective became increasingly popular. The result
was the share buy-back frenzy: corporations could now reduce the number of
shares in the market by buying them directly. What was once illegal became a common
practice which benefits shareholders.
Today,
the widely accepted understanding of corporate purpose is focused on a narrow
subset of US society. It is worth evaluating the current thinking around what
is ‘acceptable’ business behaviour. But, lasting change also requires deep
knowledge of the system’s current status quo: who the key players are, their
relative powers, and the levers needed to address each. This is where social
laboratories have come in. As wealth inequality has grown, social labs such as
The World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics have grown in number.
Such think-tanks offer the promise that by drawing together teams from
different sectors of society, they can address complex levers of change.
Another
tactic cited by academics and experts is to create more business accountability
by creating a link between business behaviour and public knowledge about how
businesses behave. The theory is that businesses will self-regulate when public
knowledge about business behaviour is made available and widely published. Such
policies seek to create accountability in a system where there is very little.
In
understanding something so complex as US wealth inequality, context matters. It
is important to take into account the US’s history and deep-rooted beliefs in a
free, capitalist system. Changing societal perceptions, business behaviour, and
laws will leave a lasting impact on the social landscape of the country. To
address them, Americans must reckon with their deepest convictions. With a
pandemic waging war on the country, rebuilding from within may not be far off.
Boris Johnson addressed the decade old issue of underfunding
the health service on Easter Sunday. “Our NHS is the beating heart of this
country – it is unconquerable, it is powered by love,” he announced, which of
course explains why it does not actually need money. “If I had only known I
would have voted to cut funding years ago,” declared Ray Ginhardon, the MP for Chunky
Bungton. The most dramatic response has been from the Labour Party, as nearly
all shadow ministers and high-flying officials have resigned. The party website
is now blank except for one phrase – “Thanks for clearing it up Boris, could’ve
been a bit sooner mind.” Only one official, the shadow minister for probing questions
has been openly critical of the government: “I, for one, am just constantly
suspicious,” stated Mr Chiz E. Finger with a severely raised eyebrow.
We asked Jeremy Corbyn for his take on these developments. A
tip-off led us to a Cornish Campsite, where we found him toasting marshmallows and
singing along to The Wolfe Tones’ greatest hits. He was participating in a
competition that consisted of seeing how close you can get the marshmallow to
the flames before it set on fire. “Money-Schmuney, of course it’s run on love,
I was right all along,” he replied jovially, although distracted. His
marshmallow had just caught alight for the third time and his bearded friend started
doing a victory lap around the campsite.
Other random policies seemingly meant to deflect attention from
the government’s incompetence have also been explained. An insider source declared
that the real intention behind children drawing rainbows was to create talismans
to fend off Covid-19 or, as some diehard racists still insist on calling it, ‘that
Wuhan virus’. The Minister for Public Information Aiya Shoryu has denied these
claims, but the throngs of people in rainbow tie-dye prison outfits – better
known on the covers of the Daily Mail as the ‘army of kindness,’ have been
demanding that all children produce a poster an hour to place in their windows
for centralised collection. They will then be taken to a factory in a secret
location and sewn into face masks for distribution to frontline health workers.
Sceptics question the scientific basis of this endeavour,
but a well-respected outer-Hebridean sea witch has provided a much needed
source of legitimacy for the government’s plans. Holy talismans “really do work”
assured the sea witch. “Lying in a bath of frogspawn under a full moon is a well
known fix-all and does wonders for the skin,” she elaborated while casually
pelting rabbit feet at passers-by. She continued unprompted: “what I’m more
frustrated about is all this ‘support local businesses’ BS. I got a take-out
from the pub last week and that curry gave me gut-rot and butt-rot for three
days straight. I couldn’t sleep. I hope he goes bust.”
We asked local Rev. Selma Soul for her take. She recommended sacrificing a loo roll to the Spirit of the lockdown to make you feel better. Pope Francis weighed in on the debate, announcing that, “There’s a reason you can’t spell ‘help the sick’ without ‘peckish’ and it’s because I work too hard and need a tea break.” He later added on Twitter that the love of God will cleanse all virus victims, and that he is offering a free crucifix to anyone who willingly converts to Roman Catholicism. No NHS representatives had the time to give us a statement, although when asked one stressed emergency room worker did give quite a fierce eye roll.
The headspace flooding by
Covid-19, is a familiar experience for many communities torn by humanitarian
crises. The number of Covid-19 related fatalities has become almost arbitrary;
the figures reduce human dignity and are disconnected from the voids left in
the lives of loved ones. The response to a crisis such as a pandemic outbreak aims
to save lives, but it hinges on the trust of those impacted and education to
end stigmatisation and avoidance. This means acknowledging and aiming to better
the context that the crisis is established in.
Since August 2018, The Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been battling with the world’s second largest
Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic. EVD is a serious viral infection with a
varied and complicated clinical presentation, as well as a high mortality rate.
The DRC government, the World Health Organisation (WHO), national and
international NGOs, the healthcare workforce, and local community leaders have
driven the response against Ebola. The number of cases is decreasing, and teams
are being pulled to other emergencies – the end of this epidemic is in sight.
In the DRC, the Ebola virus emerged amidst a storm. The ongoing brutal Kivu conflict, political instability, as well as inadequate access to healthcare services and safe drinking water paint a context demanding focus on the wider needs of the community. Despite this, the approach to this health emergency was no more than standard; hundreds of health workers were deployed, and treatment centres were set up rapidly with little focus on community-led solutions. This alienated people, further instilling a deep lack of trust in the authorities. In August 2018, Oxfam reported that only 3.6% of the outbreak response budget was dedicated to community engagement, and only 1.6% to supporting survivors and victims’ families.
Forced isolation of patients and burials carried out in the absence of respected customs contradicted traditional family-based caring practices and furthered rejection of Ebola treatment. A lack of communication fostered suspicion and exacerbated scepticism of the success of modern health interventions, a mistrust linking back to colonial medical campaigns. Many believed the virus was part of a political ploy to control the electoral power of those who were likely to be opposition-voting in the December 2018 DRC presidential election. The involvement of the police and armed forces for complying with anti-Ebola health measures contributed to an increase in people dying in communities.
The existence of Ebola
treatment centres and related health facilities became ironic; people were
reluctant to use them, and they have come under attack 420 times since August
2018. In analysis from the Journal of Infectious Diseases, it emerged that
‘Ebola-targeted violence had the largest impact on EVD transmission, and this
effect is primarily driven by civilian-involved violence.’ Periods of
intensified violence compromised contact tracing and vaccine programmes, disrupted
the provision of vital care by Ebola responders, and further discouraged
engagement in EVD treatment.
It is difficult to fathom that
a highly infectious and deadly virus, might not be the main concern for groups
involved. The massive Ebola-centred deployment of financial resources neglected
their concerns of malaria, measles, and cholera, all which have been
long-standing health concerns. It ignored the catastrophic scale of poverty and
hunger and did nothing to address the insecurity that has destabilised most of
their lives.
The vicious and volatile
cycle of the community feeling neglected and violated, forced mission
priorities to be reviewed. NGOs provided access to free healthcare for
illnesses affecting the population and built wells to give access to clean
water. Education via community health workers became evident to be just as
important as the parallel treatment of EVD. In actively contributing to the
building of new Ebola isolation units, communities started to claim them as
their own. The number of deaths from Ebola in the community dwindled.
Trish Newport, MSF Project
coordinator, claims that one of the lessons learned (and forgotten) from the
West Africa Ebola outbreak of 2014-2015 was that community involvement is ‘essential
to stop an outbreak early.’ In this epidemic, it took the burning of treatment
centres and health workers coming under gunfire for the response to initiate changes
that would be meaningful beyond the outbreak response and pave way for possible
future collaboration.
We must accept that the conflict and insecurity faced by the DRC made response efforts in this epidemic extremely difficult. But, should we celebrate that the outbreak was contained despite the difficulties? This could normalise poor communication, ignorance, and the use of coercion in the response to an epidemic. From the community perspective, the initial management of the virus reaffirmed a pre-existing trust deficit. This negated the Ebola virus as anyone’s priority. The powerful impact of following the direction of the community can’t be forgotten in the management of future outbreaks to come.
Kelly, J.D.,
Wannier, S.R., Sinai, C., Moe, C.A., Hoff, N.A., Blumberg, S., Selo, B.,
Mossoko, M., Chowell-Puente, G., Jones, J.H. and Okitolonda-Wemakoy, E., 2020.
The impact of different types of violence on Ebola virus disease transmission
during the 2018-2020 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Lowes, S.R
and Montero, E.,2018. The legacy of colonial medicine in Central Africa
Every year on Shrove Tuesday, I put aside the time to make
my family pancakes – despite the fact that my parents would much prefer to
simply have toast and my brothers almost certainly won’t like the addition of
cinnamon, blueberries or whatever so-called “wacky” ingredient I’m experimenting
with that year. I’m not religious, but there’s something ritualistic in the act
of whisking together flour, eggs and milk into a smooth batter to then watch
tiny bubbles form on the surface.
For there is something powerful in re-enacting a traditional
practice in our own kitchens – it’s like
bringing a tiny piece of history into our modern lives. And whilst I may not
make pancakes for the same reason as Christians – to confess and repent sinful
behaviour in preparation for the fasting season of Lent – I can still
appreciate its cultural heritage and historical importance.
Shrove Tuesday is just one of a multitude of days dedicated
to celebrating food. Before Oxford, I had never experienced the wonders (or
horrors, for some!) of Burns Night, complete with bagpipes and poetry. Through
traditions like these, we expose ourselves to new and exciting cultures, or
simply celebrate the ones we already proudly identify with.
Chinese New Year is one of my favourite festivals, largely
from the symbolic meaning attached to the food. ‘Zongzi’, for example, are
small, sticky rice dumplings wrapped in bamboo leaves that are said to
commemorate the famous poet Qu Yuan. After throwing himself into the river,
these dumplings were cast in so that fish would feed on the rice instead of his
beloved body.
Many characters in the Chinese language share the same
sound, which is why some Chinese foods have a meaning that is a homophone of
the Mandarin name. For example, ‘nian gao’ also means tall or high, its
pronunciation sounding like ‘year high’. This is why the sweet cake is often
served at Chinese New Year, as eating it is considered to bring good luck and symbolise
greater success in the following year. Another Chinese homophone is ‘fa cai’, a
seaweed dish also sounds like a word that means ‘to prosper’.
We attach so much meaning to food, whether it’s to mark an occasion, evoke a memory or symbolise a particular identity. Many people celebrate food festivals regardless of their nationality and often without religious motivation – like lamb on Easter Sunday to symbolise Jesus, the Lamb of God. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it is testament to how food can bring together people of entirely different identities, customs and values to rejoice in cultural diversity.
In light of a recent Cherwell article, I decided it was time to give Austen’s female leads the credit they deserve. I love Darcy as much as the next person but it’s through Austen’s female characters that her writing is truly brought to life.
Even the lead characters who go traditionally underrated add more to the story than the male characters often do. A prime example of this is Fanny Price from ‘Mansfield Park’. She may get labeled a stick in the mud but Fanny knows what she wants in life and doesn’t falter in that, even if it does mean marrying her cousin who she’s had a crush on from the age of 10. Fanny manages to come to life when she receives that awful marriage proposal from Henry Crawford, bringing far more to the page than he or her cousin ever does.
Anne Elliot in ‘Persuasion’ is, like Fanny, not the fiercest of Austen’s female characters but she is intelligent, witty and steadfast in her love for Captain Wentworth even years later. Similarly, Elinor Dashwood in ‘Sense and Sensibility’ shows a stoic strength through her composure in a chaotic world, only giving in to her emotions at the end when she finds out that Edward Ferrars isn’t married after all (cue Emma Thompson letting out the strangest sound when Hugh Grant delivers the news). While it’s definitely not great to keep your emotions bottled up as Elinor does, her sister, Marianne, takes this to its other extreme. Even I will concede that this grows a little annoying, but her character still steals every page that she’s on and keeps the reader far more gripped than any of the numerous love interests that the book has to offer.
In Northanger Abbey, Austen makes a younger character the lead, and Catherine Morland is much easier to like than Marianne Dashwood. The brilliance of Northanger Abbey comes from Austen’s use of satire so Catherine is somewhat overshadowed by the caricatures that surround her. Nevertheless, she never fails to see the best in people. Her presence reminds us, that even in farcical situations, we can make the effort to do the same. It also helps that she provides us with someone to laugh at, especially when she starts to think that Mrs Tilney was murdered by her husband in her own home. Catherine is also a far more empathetic character than many of Austen’s male love interests, apart from maybe Knightley in ‘Emma’, who is a stark contrast to his eponymous counterpart. But the beauty behind this character is that Austen knows that Emma is flawed and that doesn’t make her less of a captivating female lead. I wouldn’t want to be friends with her personally (I dread to think who she’d try and set me up with) but it’s hard not to admire her intelligence and high spirits. Emma steals the show and, when she finally does exercise a choice for her own partner, is there a sweeter moment than when she realises that she’s in love with Knightley?
All of Austen’s novels have interesting female characters but it’s Pride and Prejudice that gives us her most beloved creation. Elizabeth Bennet is fierce, smart and funny and will not let anyone treat her or her family badly. I’m even brave enough to say that Lizzie overshadows Darcy. You only need to read the scene where Darcy proposes for the first time to see that Lizzie stands up for what she believes in, especially when her sister, Jane, has been slighted. Although some may criticize Lizzie for seemingly falling in love with Darcy when she sees his estate (or when she sees Colin Firth in a wet t-shirt if you’re going off the TV show), it’s wrong to forget her other reactions to Darcy, such as when she reads his letter after his failed proposal. The secondary female characters such as Lydia and Mrs Bennet never fail to make the reader laugh (especially when the latter is played by Alison Steadman) or let out exasperated sighs, further adding to the wealth of personality Pride and Prejudice has to offer.
All in all, Austen’s skills as a writer aren’t just shown through her female characters but primarily drawn from her astute and generous treatment of them. Yes, her male love interests have set butterflies in readers’ chests for centuries but it is the portraits of the female leads that the true heart of the stories lie.
There’s a new Instagram account making waves: @OxfordUniFreshers2020. The account posts submissions from Oxford offer holders, so incoming freshers can introduce themselves and get to know each other.
The page’s first post was only published a week ago, and since then has featured an impressive 315 profiles of offer holders from many different colleges and courses. The account already has over 2000 followers and has an impressive feud going with Cambridge.
Speaking to Cherwell anonymously, the account admin explained why they set the account up: “There were a lot of other fresher accounts and groups for other universities, and I thought it would be a really good idea to provide a platform for people going to Oxford to get to know each other before term started – to make it a little easier to make friends and also to give people something to do.
“A lot of people have messaged me and said that it’s made the whole process a lot less daunting for them because they’ve been able to form connections with other people on their courses or just people whose interests they share.”
Despite the wholesomeness of the page, it is no surprise that Cambridge has been attempting (unsuccessfully) to outdo the Oxford page. The two accounts have had competitions to see who could become popular.
The Cambridge account (@CambridgeUniversity2020) spoke to Cherwell, commenting that the two accounts had “had quite a bit of rivalry since our accounts started, mainly the race to 1k followers which we won with the help of PaigeY [A Cambridge Youtuber].” There was previously a competition to reach 500 followers, which Oxford also sadly lost.
Oxford’s forfeit for not hitting 1000 followers first was to post this TikTok on their account.
However, Oxford has since performed better, beating Cambridge to 2000 followers. When asked for comment on the Oxford account’s superiority over the Cambridge page, the Oxford admin asserted: “All you Cambridge freshers must be rethinking your choices now – even with PaigeY helping you, we have come out on top.”
After this, the Cambridge account admin commented that “our competitions have been quite amicable” and that they had nothing but respect for Oxford. Overall, the rivalry is friendly, with both accounts helping to promote the Oxbridge Varsity trip.
Speaking to Cherwell, many Oxford freshers have found the account a really positive and humanising first experience of their university careers.
Verney, who has an offer to study French and Linguistics at Worcester, told Cherwell: “Before I started genuinely considering applying to Oxford, I never thought of its students as being a student in the same way that I am – I always thought they were so much better and smarter than me. Accounts like the freshers page do a great job of showing that we’re all just people who love our subjects.”
Paul, who has an offer to study Fine Art at Magdalen, said: “The freshers’ account was really nice… it’s a lovely ice breaker if you had any fears and worries about meeting new people.”
Charlotte, who has an offer to study French at Oriel added: “I was definitely struck by how down-to-earth people seemed on the page. There’s certainly a stereotype that I’ve heard people talk about a lot, but it was comforting to me to see such a variety of people and interests.”
Sofie summed up: “I sometimes feel like it is easy to picture Oxford as this highly intellectual and intimidating institution, so it’s quite relieving having the opportunity to meet people beforehand and realise that everyone is in the same boat.”
Cherwell wishes the offer-holders all the best for results day, and hopes to see them in Oxford in October.
I was not expecting to be on a plane, flying back to Australia. Libraries closed, online teaching, “unprecedented times” (etc. etc. etc.) — I sank back into my seat, flicked on the little airplane screen in front of me… and proceeded to watch all three How to Train Your Dragon films, back-to-back. I drifted into a world of comic, Viking dragon riders; of bold music scores; of right and wrong. I couldn’t look away. What a strange thing? I almost laugh thinking back on it: what a strange thing to be tethered and grounded by watching a kids’ movie about flying, while in the air? What a strange thing, that as I flicked through all the new releases and serious arthouse films I’d been meaning-to-see-for-a-while, and all the golden-age-classics-I’m-sure-I’ll-get-to-some-day, that it was the familiar comfort of kids’ films that drew me in and provided a welcome distraction.
Maybe it is because How to Train Your Dragon is about a society under pressure, one which has to change its behaviour? The village of Berk is in a violent struggle with the dragons, suffering perpetual attacks that damage houses, threaten lives, and kill livestock. The luckless protagonist, Hiccup, builds a contraption which wounds a dangerous and elusive dragon — but instead of killing it, he turns to compassion. As a result, he learns about the dragons on their own terms, taking off the mask of the monster in the process. In doing so, he triggers a transformative change in Berk, which results in dragons and humans co-habiting in a peaceful, mutually beneficial way. In these times of societal transformation, it offers a bold and generous method for centering compassion and understanding in social restructure.
But, midway through my analysis, I realised that my using How to Train Your Dragon to perform a socio-cultural critique on Covid-19 was an attempt to justify my viewing selection. If I’m being honest though, if I’m going to rush headlong at the truth rather than sidling towards it with an analysis, the real reason I wanted to watch How to Train Your Dragon was because it was nice, warm, and comforting. The best type of children’s media has that inner flame, a burnished optimism, which can remind audiences of every age of the fervent joy that comes from stories that are powered by humane goodness.
The children’s author and All Souls fellow Katherine Rundell, released a short essay last year titled Why You Should Read Children’s Books, Even Though You Are So Old and Wise. Rundell lays out a case for the consumption of children’s media by those of all ages with deft scholarship and joyous passion. For her, the best children’s fiction “helps us refind things we may not even know we have lost”. The past rushes up to meet us, reminding us of a time when “new discoveries came daily and when the world was colossal, before the imagination was trimmed and neatened…”
Anecdotally, many a zoom call with friends now scattered around the world reveals that quite a lot of us are turning back to our childhood joys in these times. A friend in London has re-read all of the How To Train Your Dragon books (‘it’s great cause you can read one a day, they’re so short — it’s just the right size to feel like you’ve achieved something!’); two friends, one in Sydney and one in Wales, are slowly watching all the Studio Ghibli films, and listening to a podcast about them as they go; and since my hazy jet-lagged jump into the How To Train movies, I have been reading Terry Pratchett.
Regarding the joys of refinding, to borrow Rundell’s term, I particularly relish the feeling that I am doing something that is purely about enjoyment. It is far harder to tangle kids’ media into the nexus of self-improvement that has been stretching across social media feeds. It discharges the pressure of using this time to get fit, learn languages, read Infinite Jest or whatever else. One of the powers of children’s films at this time is that they are not pitched at the level of extending self-improvement or artistic challenge, but instead, are capaciously centred around entertainment — and around the unfashionable poles of good and evil, with the former triumphing over the latter.
These unfashionable poles may not hold between them the complexity and insight that many of us yearn for, but they are a good place to strike out from. Perhaps they even, as Rundell would imply, offer a chance for recalibration. We can pull out our moral compass and point it at the simple childhood poles of good and bad, and test where we are now. We can triangulate ourselves in the more complex mire of adulthood by peering at the stars and the lodestone of our youth; by being reminded of a time when we held an innate belief that the rules of the fables and stories were true, and that we’d make it through any hardship if we held onto love, friendship, and hope.
Renters
in Oxford are facing growing uncertainty with the end of the government’s
three-month eviction ban.
Many
renters, especially those on furlough or Universal Credit payments, may be
faced with significant financial difficulties as a result of the ban ending.
The
ban, which also applies to buy-to-let landlords, has so far protected those who
have lost income as a result of the pandemic. However, with many renters
already spending more than 50% of their income on rent, there are fears that
there will be an eviction crisis once this period comes to an end.
This mirrors the national picture, where according to
YouGov 2 million renters may be unable to pay rent as a result of a loss of
income from the pandemic. Oxford may prove to be at the forefront of this
national crisis, owing to the proportion of income Oxford residents spend on
rent.
ACORN Oxford, a member-led campaigning organisation
working to help renters, said: “Without a rent waiver, thousands of tenants who
have lost income during this crisis will be facing mounting debt and the threat
of eviction once the temporary ban is lifted.
“People are already having to choose between buying food and paying rent. No one should have to worry about losing the roof over their head during a pandemic. We need to come together in our communities to defend renters, while we call for the government to take urgent action.”
The Oxford Tenant’s Union, a group focusing on helping
renters in Oxford, said: “The eviction ban the government has put in place does
not go nearly far enough. Renters will still be going into rent arrears with
reduced incomes and at the end of the eviction ban we will undoubtedly be
facing a massive homelessness and eviction crisis.
“Official
recommendation has been made by the New Economics Foundation (an independent
think tank) calling for a suspension of all rent payments as a very achievable
solution to support renters. The government also needs to follow through on
their promise to bring an immediate and permanent suspension to Section 21 of
the Housing Act.”
They commented on the Government’s current policy: “The Government advice for landlords to show compassion is not a proper policy that can be relied upon where so many landlords will not negotiate with tenants.
“We are
still seeing lots of aggressive behaviour from landlords, including NHS staff
lodgers being evicted by their landlord. We need real protection for renters to
stop a huge rise in homelessness and stop the most vulnerable going into debt.
“We’re hearing from renters, including many students, whose landlords are refusing to offer any sort of rent reduction even though they’ve asked; students who are being forced to pay the entirety of their contract even though they can’t physcally get back here or their housemates have left because of COVID-19; and shared houses where landlords or lettings agencies are still having strangers visit the house for viewings”
Oxford Mutual Aid, a grassroots community support group which provides support to the Oxford community, also told Cherwell: “Until now, everyone has mostly been focusing on the progress of the pandemic and the effects of the lockdown. That’s understandable, but we all need to be preparing for the economic repercussions. Housing precarity was already a huge issue before Covid-19, and there are a lot of people in Oxford who are going to need help.”
MP for Oxford East, Anneliese Dodds, told Cherwell: “Current protections for renters are inadequate.
While the government have introduced some temporary measures, like pausing
evictions temporarily and heeding Labour’s call to raise Local Housing Allowance,
these do not go far enough.
“While in the long term we need to fix the housing crisis, Labour have called on the government to introduce an emergency package of measures to help renters now. Here in Oxford, the City Council are also providing practical help to those evicted from their homes, and I also encourage constituents to contact my office if they need assistance.”
Six Oxford professors have recently been awarded Fellowships by the Academy of Medical Sciences, an independent body which represents the diversity of medical sciences in the UK.
The researchers honoured by the Fellowships include Professor David Bennett, Professor Peter Brown, Professor Ervin Fodor, Professor Peter Friend, Professor Cornelia van Duijin and Professor Matthew Wood. All six were elected amongst fifty other leading biomedical and health scientists.
The Academy of Medical Sciences works to secure a future in which both UK and global health is improved by the best research, and describe their mission as translating this research into ‘benefits for society’. They also strive to ensure that the UK leads global research into biomedical and health science.
Professor Sir Robert Lechler PMedSci, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said in a statement upon the announcement of the new Fellowships: “I am delighted to welcome these 50 new Fellows into the Academy’s Fellowship. Each one has made their own outstanding contribution to biomedical science, and together they are advancing the health of our society in the UK and internationally. Their work affects us all, from the way we keep healthy through our lifestyle, to how we are treated if we become ill, to the way we receive information about health.”
Professor Sir Lechler pointed to the importance of the work of the elected Fellows during the current crisis in his statement to the Academy, saying: “never has there been a more important time to recognise and celebrate the people behind ground-breaking biomedical and health research, working harder than ever to further knowledge and protect patients and the public.
“It brings me great pleasure to congratulate the new Fellows, and see our Fellowship grow to even greater heights of evidence-based advice, leadership and expertise.”
The new Fellows will be formally admitted into the Academy on 25th June 2020.
The UK Government has announced that 30 million doses of Oxford’s coronavirus vaccine could be made available in Britain as early as September. On Monday, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced £65.5 million of Government funding as the vaccine trials progress.
This follows a global licensing agreement between Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The agreement covers the commercialisation and manufacturing of the vaccine, although it has not yet passed safety and efficacy tests. An additional £18.5 million of taxpayer’s money was given to Imperial College London for a second potential UK developed vaccine.
If the Oxford vaccine is successful, AstraZeneca will sell it at the cost it takes to produce, only charging royalties if the virus becomes endemic, like seasonal influenza. In all, AstraZeneca hopes to produce 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, with most going to other countries around the world.
Pascal Soriot, the CEO of the company, said: “AstraZeneca is at the forefront of the response to COVID-19, and we are proud to be working with Oxford University to help make this vaccine available as quickly as possible.”
Prior to the announcement, most experts had said that the earliest we should expect a vaccine would be by 12-18 months’ time. If the vaccine is proved effective, AstraZeneca plans to fast-track regulatory approval by the fourth quarter of 2020. Their aim is to build capacity so that they can produce tens of millions of doses by the end of the year.
Sir John Bell emphasised the partnership’s international outlook, stating: “We now have a partner in AstraZeneca who are ideally positioned to help us evaluate the vaccine, manufacture it and distribute it to UK citizens as well as to the rest of the world. They share our commitment to true global access to end this pandemic.”
Business Secretary Alok Sharma states: “Our scientists are at the forefront of vaccine development. This deal with AstraZeneca means that if the Oxford University vaccine works, people in the UK will get the first access to it, helping to protect thousands of lives.
“The agreement will deliver 100 million doses in total, ensuring that in addition to supporting our own people, we are able to make the vaccines available to developing countries at the lowest possible cost. The UK continues to lead the global response to find a vaccine, and the government is backing our scientists to do this as quickly as possible.”
Dr. Alexander Douglas, the leader of the research group at Oxford which has developed the manufacturing method, said: “We have been preparing for large-scale manufacturing of our vaccine candidate since February. This funding enables manufacturing to start immediately, and so will make vaccine available as soon as possible, while adhering to the most stringent safety standards. The methods developed here in the UK will also enable the production of vaccine for other countries.”
