Connect with us

Opinion

Review Covid-19 deceased disposal on scientific evidence

Published

on

Open letter to Secretary of Health Dr. S. H. Munasinghe

Currently, the only available method of disposal of COVID-19 dead in Sri Lanka is cremation.

The basis to arrive at this decision when the guidelines were prepared was based on the factor that in January/February and early March 2020, the scientific community in Sri Lanka did not have adequate information on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Based on this lack of knowledge on the part of Sri Lankan experts in Judicial Medicine, Epidemiology and Microbiology, Sri Lankan health authorities decided to recommend measures to take no chances for the virus to spread from the dead to the living, and thus recommended cremation only, in the absence of conclusive scientific, ethical and moral evidence to do so at the time.

The time elapsed since the identification of the virus in late December 2019/early January 2020, and is now 180 days or approximately six months. In this period, there have been numerous scientific publications on the structure/characteristics (virology), epidemiology and pathophysiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In this context. it is time to look back at the scientific literature published on the virus with a particular reference to its spread from the dead to the soil, water, and its further spread through soil, water (water table) to the general public, and cause a public health issue in the international and local (Sri Lankan) arenas.

As said before, we do not know the science of the SASR-CoV-2 virus fully. In this massive lacuna of knowledge on the virus, acting in the interest of public health and safety becomes a challenge, and goes beyond hard core science itself. This is because scientists will always have diametrically opposing views with evidence to drive home their hypothesis with passion. This lacuna of knowledge creates a situation where there is a dilemma in terms of the science and the ethics of any and all decisions taken, even with the best of intentions.

In this context, have the decision makers in Sri Lanka paid adequate or indeed any attention to resolve this scientific and ethical dilemma with regards to the issue of final disposal of the dead due to COVID-19 in the accepted ethical scientific manner?

The position of the political leadership of Sri Lanka has always been that they will follow the advice given to them on the disposal of COVID dead by the health authorities. The position of health authorities to arrive at the decision to recommend cremation only has been based on the following three principal reasons:

1. The ‘current’ knowledge on the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is unknown as of now (This statement was made on 13th April 2020 and reiterated on 15th April 2020 at technical meetings held with Health Ministry Officials).

2. The SARS-CoV-2 virus in dead bodies when buried in Sri Lanka can spread to the water table, thus contaminating it and spreading the virus to a large section of the population through water, thus worsening the pandemic situation.

3. Given the militant history of the Sri Lankan Muslims (example sighted was the Easter Sunday Bombings of 21st April 2019) the Sri Lankan Muslims may use the dead body of the COVID-19 person as a Biological Weapon against other Sri Lankan citizens. This statement was publicly repeated by the Health Ministry Official on a BBC television interview a few days later (18th April 2020).

Let’s review the evidence for each of the above as of November 2020.

1. The notion that the dead bodies of Sri Lankan Muslims will be used to extract the virus and weaponize it as Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) has not materialized anywhere in the world. The technological and science to even attempt creating a biological weapon using the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is far too complex and advanced to be attempted by extremist Islamic groups operating in Sri Lanka, as per current available intelligence reports. The process of weaponizing the COVID-19 virus will at the minimal require Biological Safety Level (BSL) 3 or above laboratory facilities, and at present only the Medical Research Institute of the Ministry of Health and Universities of Sri Jayewardenepura, Colombo and Peradeniya have BSL 3 level laboratories. No evidence exists that BSL 3 level laboratories exist outside the direct purview and close supervision of the Government of Sri Lanka, and the intelligence and defence establishments. A literature search of the international databases for weaponization of SARS-CoV-2 virus yielded no results. If such a process is indeed available at international level, it has been kept classified out of reach of potential rouge scientists.

2. With regard to the knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreading to cause public health issues in countries where burial of such dead bodies has occurred, the international scientific data bases yield no results. The WHO in its “Infection Prevention and Control for the Safe Management of a Dead Body in the Context of COVID-19 – Interim Guidance dated 24th March 2020 and 4th September 2020” clearly recommends burial as an option, after having reviewed all the available scientific, ethical and moral issues related to burial of COVID-19 dead as way back as March 2020. The WHO has not changed its stance on recommending burial as an option for COVID-19 dead to date.

3. A review of the international literature on the mass spreading of the SARS-CoV -2 virus to the ground water table in the international databases, too, yields no results. The WHO and UNICEF publication titled “Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Waste Management for the COVID-19 Virus – Interim Guidance dated 19th March 2020, 23rd April 2020 and 29th July 2020” – gives information and recommendations on the issue of contamination of ground water by SARS-CoV-2 virus. An extract from the interim guidance report is given below; (The WHO and UNICEF have not changed their stance on recommending burial as an option for COVID -19 dead to date).

‘Currently, there is no evidence about the survival of the COVID-19 virus in drinking-water or sewage. The morphology and chemical structure of the COVID-19 virus are similar to those of other human coronaviruses for which there are data about both survival in the environment and effective inactivation measures. This document draws upon the evidence base and WHO guidance on how to protect against viruses in sewage and drinking-water. This document will be updated as new information becomes available’.

Given the above, the three principal factors cited by the Sri Lankan health authorities are in direct conflict with international guidelines, and in the situation that no local data has been made available to the scientific community on Sri Lankan studies to confirm the hypothesis given by the Sri Lankan health authorities, there is a clear case for reviewing the decision for cremation only for COVID-19 dead in Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, in an interim guidance dated 4thNovember 2020 tilted Consideration for implementing and adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19 the WHO has clearly advices member states that such PHSM measures ‘…should be weight against the impact these measures have on societies and individuals. Consideration includes impact on economy, security, mental health and psychosocial well-being, human rights, food security, socioeconomic disparities….’ It summarizes its guidance by stating that ‘the overall health and well-being of communities should therefore be at the forefront of considerations when deciding on implementing phsm.

The continuation of the cremation-only policy for COVID-19 dead is seriously affecting the mental and psychosocial health of 2 million Sri Lankan Muslims, who have accounted for almost 48% of the COVID deaths in Sri Lanka as of 7/11/2020.

The social impact of the cremation of COVID-19 Muslim dead bodies is best summarized by the following statement made by an elderly Muslim gentleman recently:

‘I don’t fear getting Corona at any time anywhere in the world; Nor do I fear dying of Corona anywhere in the world; but I fear of being cremated in Sri Lanka if I die of Corona’.

As we have depicted, and no doubt you as a representative of the people, are fully aware this decision to ONLY allow cremation for COVID -19 death on unsound scientific, medical, ethical and moral grounds, is causing severe mental and psychosocial hardship to the all Sri Lankan Muslims, regardless politics, social status or any other parameter.

We have been making scientific, medical, and political representation since March 2020 to the Sri Lankan government to at the very least review the cremation only policy, and include the burial option for COVID -19 dead, to no avail.

Hence, we as an integral part of the citizenry of Sri Lanka, have now to resort to pleading to the authorities on humanitarian grounds and grounds of sympathy, for the government of Sri Lanka to very kindly consider reviewing the decision to continue with the cremation only policy for the COVID-19.

We sincerely hope that you will facilitate the necessary scientific and administrative process to be put in place to review the current cremation only policy for COVID-19 dead in Sri Lanka, based on the review of the facts presented.

 

PATRIOTIC SRI LANKAN

MUSLIMS


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Take Human Rights seriously, not so much the council or office

Published

on

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.

In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.

 

Initial Addresses

UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.

His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.

High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.

Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.

But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.

 

Controversial Presentations

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.

He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”

“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”

It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.

His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.

His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,

“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”

‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.

What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.

In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.

Continue Reading

Opinion

President’s energy directives ignored by the Power Ministry: Another Point of View

Published

on

Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya

Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).

PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.

So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.

PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:

I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.

Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.

In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?

On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.

 

Enough money even to donate
vaccines

Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.

Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.

In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !

That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.

Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Confusion on NGOs and NSOs in Sri Lanka

Published

on

If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.

This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.

Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.

Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.

In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.

Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.

When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.

 

MAHADENAMUTTA

 

 

Continue Reading