10 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES Wednesday18 March 2020
Relentless testing is vital
in combating pandemic
As soon as the first few cases of severe
pneumonia were detected in Wuhan,
next-generation sequencing performed
on the patients’ biological fluids
allowed the identification of the novel
coronavirus called Sars-CoV2 (or
Covid-19 — FT.com,March 11).
Importantly, knowledge of the virus
sequence led to the development of
rapid diagnostic kits, which provide by
far the best tool for early detection of
infected people, contact tracing and
targeted quarantine. In several Asian
countries, widespread use of rapid
diagnostic kits in conjunction with
mobile phone technology to inform the
public about local outbreaks has been
key to the success of containing the
Sars-CoV2 epidemic without
generalised lockdowns and mass
quarantine.
Surprisingly, it seems that the
western world is abandoning the power
of such technologies to manage the
Sars-CoV2 pandemic, thereby hiding
from the public the true number of
infections and their locations. Hence
the public will be deprived of one of the
most valuable pieces of information to
make informed choices.
We may well be in for the long haul
in fighting this pandemic. Complete
lockdowns will not be sustainable
for more than a few weeks. Letting
most of the population become
infected, and millions die, does not
seem an option.
A targeted approach based on
relentless testing and early detection
might be more effective. The huge
logistical effort required for this
approach pales if compared to the
humanitarian and economic cost of the
alternatives. The private sector should
be drawn in to rapidly scale up testing
capacity and help develop mobile
phone apps to track the local spread of
the epidemic and predict new
outbreaks.
Ariberto Fassati
Professor of Cellular and Molecular
Virology, University College London,
London WC1, UK
Underwrite airlines’
bailout with rights issues
Assumingthe UK government will now
have to provide financial support to a
range of industries including airlines
(“Airlines step up calls for emergency
state aid”, March 16), let it be by way of
underwriting rescue rights issues, so
that the public exchequer benefits
from any subsequent recovery through
the eventual sale of any shares thereby
subscribed to.
Martin Allen
London N1, UK
New subsidies must reflect
2050 net-zero targets
For 20 years, the government and its
climate policy advisers have told us
that behavioural change can play little
part in climate mitigation. The last two
weeks have shown that this is not the
case: global emissions from fossil-fuel
flights have dropped radically, largely
by voluntary choice.
The fossil-fuel aviation business is,
inevitably, now asking for subsidies to
continue operations (“Coronavirus
pushes aviation sector into ‘crisis
zone’”,March 5).
However, fossil-fuel aviation must be
phased out by 2050 so should be
halved by 2030. Any subsidies should
reflect this future, and so be made
conditional on two actions to reinforce
the recent reductions in demand. First,
the relevant provisions of the 1944
Chicago Convention must be cancelled
and fuel tax imposed on aviation fuel to
a level at least equivalent to road tax.
Second, the full global warming
potential of international aviation must
be included in national total emissions
reports to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Given the recent court decision to
cancel the third runway at Heathrow, it
only makes sense for taxpayers to
subsidise fossil-fuel aviation operators
which support these two conditions
and which have meaningful plans for
operating without fossil fuels by 2050.
Julian Allwood
Professor of Engineering and the
Environment, Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge, UK
Captains of industry, step
up in times of need
The recent news that the government
wants not only existing companies to
ramp up production of respirators
(March 16), in preparation of the
coming Covid-19 storm, but also new
firms to make them may seem like
grasping at straws and odd behaviour.
However, while a little late perhaps,
its aim is still worthy and not without
precedent. In the 1930s when Lord
Nuffield — the former William Morris
— discovered only five mechanical
respirators — “iron lungs” — in the
country when polio was a global threat,
he ordered 5,000 machines and turned
over part of his Oxford Cowley car
factory to manufacture 700 affordable
versions. Such “respirators” were
offered free to any hospital in the
Commonwealth that requested one.
This is just one example of the
philanthropist’s giving back to society
at a time of need and a role model for
today’s captains of industry to emulate.
As Kipling’sIfputs it: “If you can
keep your head when all about you are
losing theirs,” especially in the context
of pointless panic buying.
Professor Chris Rowley
Kellogg College,
University of Oxford, UK
Finablr’s crisis demands a
government inquiry
The suspension of the shares of Finablr
(March 16), following the suspension of
the shares of NMC Health on February
27 surely requires a significant
response.
The boards of the two companies
shared directors, major shareholders
and other characteristics. NMC has
revealed previously unknown debt
facilities of $2.7bn. Finablr says it is
reviewing off-balance-sheet debt
having been made aware of previously
unknown cheques written by group
companies running into the millions.
The government, Financial Conduct
Authority and others will have bigger
problems to deal with currently.
However, this is a historic financial and
governance failure affecting two
companies anddemands a proper
response. Listing rules must be
revisited. The protections for minority
shareholders in controlled companies
must be enhanced. The failure of
external investors to challenge flawed
governance arrangements also requires
explanation. These events should be
the subject of an inquiry by the UK’s
business, energy and industrial
strategy committee.
The two companies were FTSE 100
and FTSE 250 constituents
respectively, meaning many ordinary
savers would have had exposure to
them via tracker funds. A failure on
this scale must lead to changes in the
UK’s approach.
Alan MacDougall
Managing Director, PIRC,
London E14, UK
EU policy fails to tackle
exploitation in fishing
In response to your article (“The fight
for west Africa’s fish”, the Big Read,
March 14), there has been a tradition
of EU and other foreign fleets paying
west African states far less than their
natural resources are worth, but the
export of EU fishing capacity to
developing country waters is more
widespread.
Indian Ocean tuna is worth about
$2.3bn annually. Tuna provides income
and food for millions of people in
developing nations. Yet Indian Ocean
yellowfin tuna is severely overfished by
the EU’s industrial fleet and other
fleets. Serious discrepancies in catch
reporting by the EU Spanish fleet over
the past two years remain unresolved
— a poor example for the EU, with its
“Green Deal”, to set. This year, the EU
signed a new“partnership” agreement
with the Seychelles, allowing it to catch
50,000 tonnes of tuna and tuna-like
species per year from their waters.
The price was €5.3m per year, of
which vessel owners will only
contribute €80 a tonne for the first two
years under a cosy, subsidised
agreement which can only drive
further over-exploitation.
It is unclear how much of this tuna
will be the overfished yellowfin, but, as
of today, a group of 13 concerned
scientists, of which I am one, has
written to Commissioner Virginijus
Sinkevicius, urging him to urgently
reduce the EU’s catch of yellowfin tuna
to avert stock collapse, and build
consensus in other parties to do the
same.
Callum Roberts
Professor of Marine Conservation,
University of York, UK
Malaysia’s former leader
lost the public’s confidence
Your editorial (“Malaysia requires a
transparent transition”, March 11)
concludes with the urgent need for a
parliamentary vote of confidence in the
new government. Butnew prime
minister Muhyiddin Yassin has
anticipated such a vote by expanding
the government, so that 62 MPs (out of
- have ministerial jobs, access to
large governmental allowances and
additional employment for their
personal assistants.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim
has admittedthat not enough potential
waverers are left. The vote of
confidence is a lost cause.
The outgoing government made at
least two major errors. Prime minister
Mahathir Mohamad was out of the
country for more than 30 official
overseas trips in less than two years,
including long-distance visits to
Senegal and Ghana, which kept him
from steering his home country. This is
especially regrettable in a political
culture where the prime minister holds
forth and has to sign off on everything.
Also, the government did nothing to
shift public opinion away from anger
about the cost of living as the main
issue in politics. Hard for any
government to lower the price level in
the short-term. Mr Mahathir’s
government could have been more
popular with strong initiatives to
increase incomes, extend insurance for
unemployment and disability, and
improve access to education for the
ethnic minorities.
Prof Eduard J Bomhoff
Monash University,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Sometimes a disadvantage in life can
be a distinct advantage in the
workplace. That is what some US
employers discovered recently, when
record low unemployment forced
them to tap overlooked pools of
labour to find workers.
They have found that disabled
workers — particularly, some
employees on the autism spectrum —
are able to do their jobs well, not
despite their disability but because of
it. They may even have a thing or two
to teach other employees about how
to work. “In some cases their
disability is actually an ability, they
are predisposed by it to be successful”
says Becky Frankiewicz, president of
ManpowerGroup North America.
JPMorganChase’s Autism at Work
programme employs 175 people in
eight countries in 40 different job
roles, including two personal bankers.
Anthony Pacilio, head of the
programme, says they are “90 to 140
per cent more productive” than
“neurotypical” employees and make
fewer errors. “They are doing two
people’s work,” he says.
Routine is very important to
neurodiverse employees, but
disability experts say it’s too soon to
tell whether they are doing any worse
— or better — than others during the
coronavirus pandemic. “There has
been a similar response from our
neurodiverse and neurotypical
employees to the anxiety surrounding
the virus based on work from home
needs... I personally haven’t had any
indication that our Autism at Work
employees are worse off than anyone
else,” says Mr Pacilio.
Outlining the business case for
hiring employees on the autism
spectrum, he says, “they are able to
pick patterns out of things that we
were never able to see before”. Some
may struggle in traditional interviews
and to talk to neurotypical colleagues.
But they have an “ability to stay
focused on a task, no matter what that
task may be. Sometimes it’s just
boring work, these guys will take that
and just motor through it,” he says.
“Sometimes you have to remind them
to stop for lunch.”
Danny Lakes and Noah Pittinger are
both on the autism spectrum, and
they work atProcter & Gambleglobal
headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio,
writing software to automate highly
repetitive jobs. “We have an attention
to detail more attuned than the
average person,” says Mr Pittinger.
Mr Lakes explains: “Our jobs
involve a large amount of detail work,
reading through hundreds of lines of
code and pinpointing one semicolon
that is out of place. I consider being
neurodiverse an incredible boon in
this line of work. And because I pay
such close attention to detail I can find
connections that other people would
miss.”
P&G worked with the disability
charity Easterseals to build a team of
neurodiverse employees. Its leader
Roman Yuvienco says one reason they
are better at their jobs is a trait that is
often seen as a disability associated
with autism: they may miss social
cues, or communicate in ways not
considered standard in the American
workplace. “They have a very direct
communication style, there is no
sugar-coating,” says Mr Yuvienco.
That can put people’s backs up — but
it has its advantages, he says. Because
people on the autism spectrum may
not know how to “tiptoe around” the
emotions of co-workers, says Mr
Lakes, “we get to the root of problems
quicker and solve them faster”.
JPMorgan’s Mr Pacilio says those
who manage neurodiverse employees
have to learn to be more direct “and
that makes them better managers not
just for people on the spectrum but
for everybody”. Still,experts estimate
that 85 per cent of US graduates
affected by autism are out of work, so
there’s a long way to go. Little things
can make a big difference, they say: if
a job description lists requirements as
bullet points, many autistic applicants
will fail to apply unless they meet each
one perfectly.
P&G makes some accommodations
for the neurodiverse team, like noise-
cancelling headphones (because
autistic people can struggle in noisy
environments), and placing desks
near windows (some struggle with
artificial lighting). JPMorgan gave its
employees fixed seats because those
on the spectrum generally prefer
structure. But they say it’s a small
price to pay for the comparative
advantage they have discovered in
having autistic employees.
Overlooked
workers tapped
in challenging
times
Notebook
by Patti Waldmeir
Letters
WEDNESDAY18 MARCH 2020Email:[email protected]
Include daytime telephone number and full address
Corrections:[email protected]
If you are not satisfied with the FT’s response to your complaint, you can appeal
to the FT Editorial Complaints Commissioner: [email protected]Airports around the world have
become parking lots for grounded
planes. The last time this many aircraft
were idle was after the terrorist attacks
of September 11 2001. Today’s near-
shutdown of commercial aviation
caused by the coronavirus is worse. It is
likely to last much longer than the one
two decades ago, and poses more of an
existential threat to airlines.
Faced with the likelihood that carri-
ers go bust, what should governments
do? The calls for assistance are loud and
urgent — global airlines need up to
$200bn of supportto help them
through the crisis, the International Air
Transport Association said yesterday.
In the US, carriers have asked for anaid
package worth $50bn. That would
dwarf the $15bn granted after 9/11. In
the UK, Virgin Atlantic says the indus-
try needs assistance totalling £7.5bn.
These are enormous sums, particularly
when many industries — hotels, tour-
ism, the entire hospitality sector, to
name just a few — are making similar
claims for support. If there were not
enough of a strain on national treasur-
ies already, health services the world
over have a more important require-
ment for a serious injection of funds.
Politicians must also consider how
granting aid to airlines fits into the big-
ger picture of climate change and tar-
gets to cut carbon emissions.
While many political leaders will see
the survival of airlines as strategically
important — they are often called “flag
carriers” for good reason — it is not
hard to build a case that airlines should
have to fend for themselves. Airline
investors have done pretty well over
the past decade, as consolidation has
allowed companies to make money.
This is particularly true in the US,
where a few mega-carriers have not
only made decent returns but devoted
much of their free cash flow to share
buybacks. A recent analysis by
Bloomberg found that the five biggest
US carriers spent 96 per cent of their
free cash flow in the past decade on
stock buybacks. Several have in the
past also availed themselves of US laws
governing bankruptcy protection.
In Europe, where too many airlines
are still chasing too few passengers, a
shake-out was always inevitable. There
are carriers whose business models
would not be sustainable even without
the stress of today’s pandemic. In Italy,
the state is poised to hand Alitalia a
€600m rescue package; if it happens,
the bailout would mark just the latest
intervention by the state. Any rescue
must come with strict conditions
attached. Above all, the government
must make sure the interest of the tax-
payer is protected. Similarly, if a carrier
is rendered insolvent by the crisis then
this could mean the government taking
ownership — albeit only temporarily —
before a comprehensive restructuring.
Given the importance of airlines to
the wider economy, there is neverthe-
less a case for co-ordinated, short-term
state support to help them weather this
storm. No one knows how long it will
last and even those carriers with access
to cash and credit lines today may
require assistance in a few months’
time. Ensuring liquidity to keep opera-
tions going and to keep up payments to
suppliers is vital. Short-term loans,
grants or tax relief are all options gov-
ernments should consider. As with any
loan, however, airlines must put up col-
lateral in exchange. Governments
should have priority over other non-
trade creditors, even secured ones.
The UK and Australia are among
those due to announce targeted pack-
ages in the coming days. Aviation will
play a key role in the global recovery
effort once the crisis passes. A targeted
approach to help carriers navigate the
turbulence is the right way forward —
but not at any price.
Government aid to weather the outbreak must be short-term
Airlines should not get
blank cheques to survive
A nurse with her face bruised by a pro-
tective mask; doctors tending to
patients on makeshift beds; churches
transformed into mortuaries — these
images have become the symbols of
Italy’s desperate fight against coronavi-
rus. The country’s healthcare system is
buckling under the strain. Its death toll
has soared past 2,000.
Italy is the hardest hit of European
countries. It should be able to rely on its
neighbours for help — that is, after all,
what theEU is all about. Yet when Italy
asked for emergency medical supplies
last week from its fellowmembers, the
call went unheeded. China finally
responded with an offer of critical
equipment, including ventilators.
Italy’s plighthas rapidly become a
test of European solidarity. There are
signs of increasing unilateralism
among EU member states. Individual
countries are going their own way on
border controls, the policing oflarge
events, school closures and assistance
to small businesses. Even Germany’s
Angela Merkel, a leader in European
co-operation since the 2015 migrant
crisis, made an about-face on Sunday
withthe rush to seal off her country’s
borders.In times of emergency,
national self-interest is understanda-
ble. But without co-operation and bur-
den-sharing, the principles of an ever
closer union are meaningless.
Some of the differences in responses
can be explained. Under EU treaties,
Brussels still has limited powers to act
during public health emergencies. The
burden of responding to the pandemic
was always going to fall on national
governments. In this particular case,
Rome’s hopes for assistance on medical
supplies were pinned on the European
Commission activatinga mechanism of
civil protectionthat allows the bloc to
buy equipment and distribute it across
countries where the need is at its great-
est. But no EU country responded to
the call. The pandemic raises the ques-
tion of whetherpublic health should
continue to be a sovereign respons-
ibility. Given the increasing number
of cross-border threats — not just
pandemics but also bioterrorism and
chemical attacks — it would make
sense for member states to reconsider
the distribution of powers on this
issue.
Unlike the bloc’s national govern-
ments, the European Commission
under Ursula von der Leyen has had
the right instincts so far — even if the
EU executive has sometimes struggled
to be heard. Brussels is right to threaten
states with legal action if they stop
exports of medical equipment to other
members, a flagrant breach of the sin-
gle market. The absence of co-ordina-
tion with EU partners and the break-
down of supply chains in the single
market due to export restrictions or
border closures could also make it
harder to fight the pandemic.
EU leaders’ decisionto ban non-es-
sential travel to the 26-nation Schen-
gen passport-free zoneis a belated sign
of a co-ordinated approach — although
for most countries the bigger threat of
infection is now domestic. European
leaders should also beware that a rever-
sion to nationalism would come at a
dangerous time for a union whose ties
are already being strained by underly-
ing tensions. In Italy, opposition leader
Matteo Salvini has used the lack of sup-
port for his country to stoke opposition
against the EU.
The pandemic risks becoming a sym-
metrical shock to the union. It will
require far-reaching forms of burden
and risk-sharing if another financial
crisis in the region is to be avoided. EU
leaders must guard against a terminal
breakdown in their countries’ political
commitment to European unity. It is
time for EU leaders to speak and act
with one voice.
Italy’s desperate plight has become a test of European solidarity
EU unity is vital in the
fight against coronavirus
The UK is under criticism because its
response to the coronavirus has been
less dramatic than that of other
European countries (March 17).
This prompts a personal memory. As
a British diplomat in Brussels in 1986, I
was involved in the EU negotiation to
agree radioactivity standards for
foodstuffs following the Chernobyl
explosion. This was highly visible,
highly political and crucial to
maintaining agricultural trade in the
union. Of the then 12 EU member
states, only one, the UK, brought
scientists along to the meetings, and
held out firmly for the standards to be
set according to scientific, not political,
criteria. Most of our partners were
driven by a sort of herd instinct to
overreact in response to domestic
political panic. I suspect we are seeing
something similar in the European
response to the coronavirus outbreak
(what scientific reason can there
possibly be, for example, forclosing the
border between Germany and
France?). It follows that we should not
take their measures too seriously as
comparators for our own.
One other point. A couple of your
contributors over the weekend enjoyed
mocking the British government for
dismissing expert predictions over
Brexit, but now firmly following them
in the case of coronavirus (March 14).
But surely there are experts whom
we are right to take seriously
(scientists, doctors) and others for
whom this is less true (astrologers,
economists).
Sir Anthony Brenton
Cambridge, UK
It is right to take scientific advice seriously
MARCH 18 2020 Section:Features Time: 17/3/2020-18:46 User:alistair.hayes Page Name:LEADER USA, Part,Page,Edition:USA, 10 , 1