Events are happening faster than we can write articles on, so we’re switching to a summary format, with the URL for you to go to and read at more length if you so choose.
Some of the subjects may be hard to take and so a smaller bite of information may be more desirable. It allows you the choice to read or not.
Some subjects may be too uncomfortable to read. We ask you to use discernment in your choice.
Women are more likely to work on the frontlines of healthcare.
Here’s how to achieve gender equality after the pandemic
Katica Roy, World Economic Forum, April 25, 2020
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/how-to-achieve-gender-equality-after-pandemic/
- Preparing budgets from a gender perspective will help us establish a more inclusive world order.
- Gender-disaggregating data serves as the basis for gender budgeting.
- Any effort to mitigate the fallout of COVID-19 without the gender lens dilutes its efficacy.
Our response to COVID-19 is fundamentally a question of who we are. When we say that ensuring the wellbeing of half the world’s population matters, do we believe it? Or do we say it to be diplomatic?
Most indicators would suggest it’s the latter, as we’ve spent decades admiring the problem of gender inequity with little to show for our efforts. Not one country in the entire world can say it has achieved equality among the genders. And between 2019 and 2020, we’ve added 55 extra years to the timeline for closing the gender gap in economic equality. We are now an estimated 257 years away from achieving economic gender equity.
If we truly believe that gender equity is the key to global success – and we should because the data overwhelmingly support this conclusion – then now is our time to step up and establish a new, more inclusive world order.
Gender budgeting is the ideal vehicle to drive such a change, and the G20 is the ideal institution to lead the endeavour.
The G20’s moment to stand forward on gender budgeting
The expansive reach of COVID-19’s economic damage requires a massive and coordinated response at the global level. Being that the G20 members represent nearly 80% of the world’s economy, 75% of international trade, and 60% of the global population, we must support their efforts to mitigate the impact of this global pandemic.
Specifically, we must call on the G20 to initiate the ubiquitous application of gender budgeting – preparing budgets or analyzing them from a gender perspective – across response efforts. This is not only in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 – to achieve gender equality – it is also in line with the statement released by the Business 20 (B20), the Labour 20 (L20), which represents the interests of workers, and the Women 20, which urged the G20 to “use all available policy tools to minimize the economic and social damage from the pandemic, restore global growth, maintain market stability, and strengthen resilience”.
Gender budgeting is among those available policy tools mentioned in the joint statement – and it is perhaps the sharpest tool of them all. Let’s explore why.
Why gender budgeting now?
COVID-19 will impact the world of work in three key ways, according to the International Labor Organization (ILO):
1. The quantity of jobs available (unemployment and underemployment)
2. The quality of work (wages and access to social protections)
3. Outsized effects on the most vulnerable employees (namely women)
There are many ways we can address these three categories of COVID-induced disruptions. One of the most effective and sustainable ways is by applying the gender lens. That is, take the economic data and gender-disaggregate it. Then, use those findings to create sound policy decisions.
What is the unemployment rate for women versus men? How many female employees have access to affordable healthcare compared to male employees? How are men coping with stay-at-home orders? How are women coping?
Gender-disaggregating the data serves as the basis for gender budgeting and provides the requisite situational understanding to craft effective policy. If gender budgeting sounds intuitive, it’s because it is. Yet, the world has passed $8 trillion of fiscal stimulus to combat COVID-19 and we have little indication that this money has been gender-lensed. This is troubling.
A gender-blind approach to fiscal stimulus a) results in an inefficient allocation of resources, and b) risks exacerbating existing inequities. These two externalities apply in times of prosperity and are even more pronounced in times of economic crisis.
Women are shouldering the burden of COVID-19’s economic fallout
Take the ILO’s first “world of work” category disruption, the quantity of jobs available, as an example. Social distancing and lockdown measures have impacted nearly 81% of the world’s labour force. We already know that women are more likely than men to lose their jobs during this crisis. In the UK, for example, lower-paid, female, and young workers are seven times more likely to work in sectors that have shut down to contain the spread of the virus.
Now let’s consider the ILO’s second category of distribution, the quality of work available. The jobs women work do not provide adequate economic security for many of them and their families to weather this storm. For entrenched structural reasons, women earn 16% less than men – and that’s the global average. Some countries have pay gaps of up to 35%. In the US, home to the world’s largest economy, the gender pay gap causes women to miss out on $10,122 each year. Moreover, women represent less than 40% of total global employment but represent 57% of part-time workers – workers whose jobs are among the first to be cut when the economy nosedives. Earning less, saving less, and holding less stable jobs reduces women’s ability to absorb the economic aftershocks of COVID-19.
Finally, we need to examine the outsized effects of COVID-19 on some of our world’s most vulnerable, namely women. As the Ebola virus has demonstrated, quarantine measures dramatically weakened women’s economic ability, thus increasing their poverty rates and the severity of food insecurity. And while economic activity bounced back quickly for men, economic insecurity lingered much longer for women.
Or look at the unpaid labour economy. Prior to COVID-19, women did triple the amount of unpaid domestic labour as men. This unpaid labour has been called the backbone of our economy for a reason. In Costa Rica, unpaid work accounts for 25.3% of GDP. Now with 3.9 billion people in lockdown and 1.37 billion students not at school, women’s burden of unpaid labour has sky-rocketed.
The economic upside of inclusive budgeting
A gender-sensitive response to COVID-19 is more than just the right thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. Any effort to mitigate the fallout of COVID-19 without the gender lens dilutes its efficacy. And on a fundamental level, we cannot prosper when the needs of half of the world’s population are ignored. Analysts already predict that the coronavirus pandemic will cause the global economy to miss out on $5 trillion of growth over the next two years. If we want to bounce back from this crisis faster and stronger, then we must apply the gender lens to relief packages.
Not only will gender budgeting accelerate and fortify our economic recovery, it will also fast-track us to an equitable and more resilient world. In fact, we could unlock $12 trillion in economic gains by closing the gender equity gap. Make no mistake, this is not a women’s issue. It’s in everybody’s best interest for leaders to practice gender budgeting, starting immediately.
How to put gender budgeting in action
If the current state of emergency is ground zero, then now is our opportunity to take a stand for inclusivity by placing gender at the centre of forthcoming fiscal policy. Here’s how we can make sure that happens:
1. Engage women in decision-making processes
Women are 50% of the world’s population. Their lived experiences, talents, and perspectives need a seat at the table. Again, this isn’t just the nice thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. Women are effective policymakers and when they are involved in peace negotiation processes, for instance, the final agreement is 64% less likely to fail.
2. Gender-disaggregate all economic data
Gender-disaggregating data is the foundation of gender budgeting. When we collect data, we need to make sure we disaggregate it based on gender. This includes rates of infection, unemployment, underemployment, number of abuse cases, and unpaid labour burden. For example, women represent 70% of the global health workforce and are more likely to work on the frontlines of healthcare. As such, they face higher risks of exposure to the virus than men. In Spain, 72% of infected healthcare workers are women. So what are we going to do about it?
3. Use the gender lens to craft relief programs
Let gender-disaggregated data guide the creation of policy solutions. That way we can address the needs of populations in proportion to the size of the need. Cash-transfer programmes should take into account that women are more likely to hold informal work arrangements and have care obligations that may prevent them from accessing aid. In South Asia, over 80% of women in non-agricultural jobs have informal employment. It would be a shame if access to social protections and consumer stimulus depended on participation in the formal sector.
4. Ensure equity of impact by integrating gender-based assessments
The goal of these assessments is to analyze the impact of policy measures so they do not inadvertently hinder women’s labour force participation or access to social protections. In the UK, women shouldered 85% of the impact of austerity measures between 2010 and 2015. That’s largely because women are more likely to be single parents and depend on the welfare benefits that were cut from the budget.
While Media Mocks Trump for Suggesting Light Treatment for Coronavirus Patients, Bio-Tech Company Working With FDA and Cedars-Sinai on UV Light Treatment to Kill the Virus in Patients
Here is what President Trump said. Excerpt from White House transcript:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful…
President Trump was referring to a light technology such as this:
Healight Platform Technology
Aytu Bioscience, n.d.
Novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral infection that replicates in the upper respiratory tract. Approximately 10-15% of those infected with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have a severe clinical course, with nearly 5% becoming critically ill requiring mechanical ventilation due to respiratory failure. Death resulting from COVID-19 is thought to be due to respiratory failure and/or secondary infections including ventilator associated pneumonia.
To date, there is no known treatment for COVID-19 or conventional means to reduce secondary infections in mechanically ventilated patients. Any safe and effective antiviral and antibacterial treatment option for these patients that could lower viral load and improve factors of respiratory failure would be advantageous.
Ultraviolet (UV) Light
Ultraviolet (UV) is a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths from 10 nm to 400 nm. These wavelengths are shorter than that of visible light. Between the wavelengths 100 to 400 nm ultraviolet radiation (UV light) is subcategorized into three different ranges: Ultraviolet C (UVC) 100 – 280 nm, Ultraviolet B (UVB) 280 – 315 nm, and Ultraviolet A (UVA) 315 – 400 nm.
UVC light is weak at the Earth’s surface since it is absorbed by the ozone layer of the atmosphere, however UVC from manufactured lamps/lights has been widely used as a commercial germicide. Radiation between the 200 nm and 300 nm wavelengths are strongly absorbed by nucleic acid (DNA & RNA), leading to nucleic acid damage, and resulting in inactivation of the organism or death.
While UVC light has broad germicidal properties, it is also harmful to mammalian (human) cells. Alternatively, UVA and UVB devices have been FDA-approved with indications to treat human diseases including skin lymphoma, eczema, and psoriasis. Of the three spectrums, UVA light appears to cause the least damage to mammalian cells. Recent advances in light emitting diodes (LEDs) have made it much more feasible to manufacture and apply narrow band (NB) UVA light to internal organs.
Proof of Concept
An abstract led by the team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was published in the United European Gastroenterology Journal, October 2019, titled “Internally Applied Ultraviolet Light as a Novel Approach for Effective and Safe Anti-Microbial Treatment.” Here, the authors show that UVA light exhibits significant in vitro bactericidal effects in an array of clinically important bacteria. Additionally, this is the first study using intracolonic UVA application, which reports that UVA exposure is not associated with endoscopic or histologic injury. These findings suggest that UVA therapy can potentially provide a safe and effective novel approach to antimicrobial treatment via phototherapy on internal organs.
* This has not been reviewed by the FDA. This device, or concept of this device is currently not indicated for use in the treatment of COVID-19.
YouTube Takes Down Bio-Tech Firm’s Video Explaining Potential UV Light Treatment for Coronavirus Patients
YouTube took down a video Friday posted by the bio-tech firm Aytu BioSience explaining a new UV light treatment for coronavirus patients. Aytu BioScience announced Tuesday the firm is working with Cedars-Sinai and the FDA to determine the efficacy of the treatment.
The video is now labeled, “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service”.
Doctors in Nevada Sue Sisolak Over Ban on Hydroxychloroquine
Read the recent letter to the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy here
On March 23, 2020, Governor Steve Sisolak of Nevada, in conjunction with the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, signed a regulation that restricted medical doctors in the state from prescribing two medicines many healthcare professionals worldwide have turned to in their fight against COVID-19; hydroxychloroquine, and chloroquine. Now, Dr. Bruce Fong and the Nevada Osteopathic Medical Association are suing Governor Sisolak, the State of Nevada, and the Nevada State Pharmacy Board for the right to make treatment decisions on behalf of their patients, some of whom, the doctors contend, could die without access to a drug that has shown the potential to save lives.
The suit was filed on April 21st in Washoe County, and because the matter pertains to a declared state of emergency, attorney Joseph Gilbert is requesting a speedy hearing.
Gilbert, Dr. Fong, and NOMA make several contentions in the suit. Governor Sisolak formed a medical advisory team which consisted of the CMO, along with four additional medical experts. The Nevada State Board of Pharmacy then held a hearing to decide on the order, which bars doctors from prescribing (and pharmacies from filling) hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine prescriptions outside of a hospital setting. The complaint alleges that the majority of the advisory team are not licensed to practice medicine in the state, and under state regulation their role is administrative. NOMA and Gilbert argue that “by adopting the Emergency Regulations, the BOP is, in effect, both impermissibly practicing medicine and illegitimately restricting where the practice of medicine can occur.”
In speaking to UncoverDC, Dr. Fong said “There is a sacred tenet, and it is the patient doctor relationship. Through that relationship, a doctor makes an assessment about that patient’s condition by discussion with their patient, other diagnostic means, etc., and they move forward. A primary physician who has a longstanding relationship with a patient knows that patient better than any other clinician, and much better than any administrative body. So, when you have any administrative body telling you that isn’t OK- not like it’s a poison we are talking about- when that administrative body is prohibiting a physician from writing a script for a medicine that has a high probability to stop illness when used within a specific critical window, it’s frustrating. We now have the pharmaceutical board telling me that I can’t stop someone who appears to be getting worse from going in to the hospital, when there is a treatment option available that would allow me to do so, potentially saving their life.”
Attorney Joey Gilbert told UncoverDC “In essence, Governor Sisolak and the Board of Pharmacy are both practicing medicine without a license, and illegitimately restricting where the practice of medicine can happen in Nevada. Sisolak is using a declared State of Emergency in the middle of a health crisis, and stepping between a doctor and their patient, to proclaim that they know better” In addition, Gilbert said that “all of the concerns that the BOP cited when enacting the Emergency Regulation have already been addressed and resolved at the Federal level. There is no excuse for this.”
The case is personal for him, too. Immediately before the ban, both of his parents were diagnosed with COVID-19, and prescribed hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. His father went from being horribly ill to doing remarkably better within hours of his first dose of the medication. Gilbert said “I have seen this medicine work. Both my mother, and my father were extremely ill and getting worse. They were able to obtain the medicine because it was prescribed in the hours before the ban. Both of my parents have now recovered, and both credit their change in condition to hydroxychloroquine”.
On Sunday March 28th, the chief scientist at the FDA declared that chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate meet the criteria concerning safety and potential effectiveness, and that the products are authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 when administered by a Health Care Provider.
When the order was signed, Governor Sisolak cited off label usage as a concern, and also asserted there would be medicinal shortage leading to a hardship for others already taking the medicine; mainly patients with Lupus and autoimmune disease. The suit establishes that using a drug “off label” is not only widespread in the medical community, its legal. NOMA and Gilbert also detail that there is an adequate supply of the medicine, and that there is more than enough available in the national stockpile to accommodate Nevada. At the time of writing, Nevada is the only state barring their doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to their patients.
The complaint states “Not only has the BOP purported to practice medicine and adopted a regulation that restricts access to a potential life-saving treatment, but it has done so in the midst of a global crisis and healthcare pandemic, to the detriment of Nevada citizens. This unlawful action must be corrected.”
Dr. Fong, President of NOMA, has been vocal about the ban since it was instituted. In an email written by him and sent to all members of NOMA a few weeks ago he states:
“… in my humble opinion, since it is at this stage of initial worsening as an outpatient before hospitalization, that the patient may be developing viral pneumonia, this is a critical window of therapeutic intervention. If we have a reasonably effective anti-microbial agent(s) that can be used at this point, we can limit the spread and damage of said pneumonia and likely prevent its transition into Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and the severe complications associated with such including the increased chance of mortality. If we wait until a patient is admitted following the need to meet all of the current admission criteria to a hospital, we may lose the opportunity to stop the complications before they start. Normally all we can do once in the hospital is give supportive care. Even if we begin using the hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine after admission, we may still miss that critical therapeutic window.”
You can read the full letter as an exhibit to the lawsuit, or republished here on his practice website.
Dr. Fong told UncoverDC “People who have no business talking about clinical medicine need to stay out of it. When we make treatment recommendations in these sorts of crisis situations, everyone who takes care of these patients should have a voice and it shouldn’t just be the hospital doctors who are only seeing the sickest and most critical patients.” He added, “What I am worried about is that this declaration prohibits doctors in an outpatient setting from prescribing their patients a potentially lifesaving medication when they are in the critical therapeutic window.“
Dr. Fong’s passion is garnering support from elsewhere. On April 23, the Washoe county commission voted four-to-one to support the Nevada Osteopathic Medical Association’s legal challenge to Governor Steve Sisolak’s directive. Another voice in support is Dr. T. Brian Callister, governor of the Nevada chapter of the American College of Physicians. He also testified at the Washoe county commission hearing this past Thursday.
In a final attempt to avoid litigation, Gilbert wrote April 23rd to the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, in response to a request that NOMA provide their desired outcome for the use of Hydroxychloroquine. Essentially, the letter requests that they change their restriction to allow medical doctors outside of a hospital setting to prescribe the drug to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19. The recent letter even includes an email from Robert Leighton, the Reno emergency City Manager, asking for a review of the decision.
Should Sisolak and the Nevada Board of Pharmacy respond to the letter, NOMA, Dr. Fong, and Gilbert will drop the suit, which is gaining more momentum and support each day.
Tracy Beanz is the Founder and Editor in Chief of UncoverDC. Follow her on Twitter @TracyBeanz
Can you name a country on this map? Thanks to Brian.