trying to calm fears over the spread of the coronavirus, telling the american people the risk remains very low. he's put vice president mike pence in charge of the response, and says of the 15 people diagnosed of the infection, only one remains in hospital. more new cases are outside china than inside. in italy, the number of cases has reached 400 and the virus has been detected in almost a0 countries. the world health organization says it's deeply concerned. the indian prime minister has called for calm as at least 27 people are killed in communal violence in delhi. the clashes first broke out over a controversial new citizenship law. crowds of mostly hindu men have been beating and burning, sending muslim residents fleeing homes and businesses. there are dead and injured on both sides.

you're pretty much up to date. it's about liz30am. now on bbc news, hardtalk. hello and welcome to hardtalk, i'm shaun ley. "get ready" is the message from the health experts fighting the coronavirus, covid—i9. at least 80,000 people are already infected in more than a0 countries, and that number is expected to rise. my guest today is david heymann, professor of hygiene & tropical medicine the london school. is the world health organization moving fast enough? will the price be paid by those unlucky enough to get sick?

professor david heymann, welcome to hardtalk. do you think it is on the point of becoming a pandemic? the word pandemic is really a distracting word because it means different things to different people. what needs to be done is countries need to do their own risk assessment and decide what they can do best, whether it's to lockdown the virus in small outbreaks or to begin strategies that would be in place should it again to spread wider in the community. in what way do you think this word is unhelpful? a lot of people have regarded this as simplya a lot of people have regarded this as simply a way to define the worldwide spread of this disease, making the point it is simultaneously in different places, and that can help trigger an international response. there's

several reasons. first of all, the who uses the term public health emergency of international concern, and they've already called this an emergency of international concern. they did wait until the 30th of january to do it, don't you think it should have been a bit sooner? they waited until they have the evidence they felt necessary to make the recommendation, but now it's looking like it is spreading, in outbreaks at least, worldwide, and possibly could spread into the communities, there won't be a change with what's going on now if the word pandemic is used. the us centers for disease control and prevention, where you once worked for many years, say pandemic is likely and ansu fati, speaking in the last few days, said it isn't a question of if but when. some people in the public health industry find the word of value because it helps them identify the scale of the challenge. that's right, and when you think of when the pandemic influenza was announced in 2009, it changed nothing. the

response was the same. countries have preparedness plans and they put those plans into operation and right now the word pandemic means countries could stop trying to lockdown the virus without outbreaks and prevent a rapid spread in the country if it is so destined to do that. the word pandemic may have connotations that could actually backfire. is it fair to say this has been discussed by the world health organization? it's not that they haven't looked at it, they've engaged and considered whether it would be useful and they've effectively said no, it's no use. that's not exactly the case. yesterday there was a discussion at an advisory group i chair, we talked about the usefulness of declaring a pandemic and we asked for the criteria that would be used to announce that pandemic. but at the same time we talked about possible confusion between the public health emergency, that's already been announced, and also about the strategies countries should use in deciding how to deal with this. but this is a question a bit more than

making sure, i heard exactly the argument you're making by another public health expert on the radio in the last few days, because it does have a direct impact. rory stewart, who is a former british international developers and secretary, before until... and this decision could actually impede the response in some parts of the world. it could. the committee i chair is actually a committee that works closely with the damning emergency fund at the world bank and we are working to make sure that funding is made available when it's needed, and now it's needed in many developing countries. so you're saying to the world bank must get the word, it's not what matters... ourjob is to make recommendations. the recommendation would be to clarify what the difference is between a public health emergency and a pandemic and when funds should be released. that takes us back to the same problem, doesn't it? if they

still need to clarify that and the word isn't being used, the funds are not being released. it's absolutely right and we're working to sure these funds are released. this is a live issue at the moment. you spent the first 12 months, years of your career as a medical epidemiologist... surely they need this help now if they're going to be ina this help now if they're going to be in a position to protect their populations from this potential spread of this very serious illness stop the actually they needed the funds in advance. right. that's the whole problem with international development aid and the pandemic emergency fund. funding should be made available to countries, governments should be committed in those countries to use those funds to develop the capacities they need to develop the capacities they need to detect and respond and prevent international spread. detection, this is a really important point, at the end of january, this is a really important point, at the end ofjanuary, you'll this is a really important point, at the end of january, you'll know this better than i do, i'm generally taken aback by what the who said in a radio interview, in sub—saharan

africa there were two countries in the whole of the continent that could test for this. senegal at the pastor institute and south africa. that's an illustration, isn't it, about how essential it is the money is made available quickly because if you can't test for it, you don't know if you got it and if you don't know if you got it and if you don't know you've got it, you don't know how far it's know you've got it, you don't know how far its spread, and if you don't know how far it's how far its spread, and if you don't know how far its spread, you got no chance of containing it. absolutely, and yesterday we showed a map where every country in sub—saharan africa a map where every country in sub—sa ha ran africa has a map where every country in sub—saharan africa has had training and established a centre where they can do the analysis of the nucleic acids to better understand what's going on. so there has been funds available and those funds have been used to strengthen capacities through the africa centre for disease control and the who regional office in africa. what do you think office in africa. what do you think of the world health organization's response thus far? i think it's been a very solid response from the beginning, and what the who is doing is networking epidemiologists,

clinicians and virology ‘s who are working at sites of outbreak and others to understand what's necessary to treat patients, what the best success treatments is stop the best success treatments is stop the epidemiologist working together have understood how the disease is spread from person to person, close social contact and health worker infections, and it also understands the sequence of infection versus disease —— virologists. there is many things understood but watson not yet understood is the transmissibility, how easily will this virus transmit in the community? —— what's not understood. that must raise concerns about the advice thus far, which is to isolate for two weeks, is actually effective. we've seen a number of insta nces, effective. we've seen a number of instances, the most obvious one was the diamond princess, the cruise ship, offjapan, the diamond princess, the cruise ship, off japan, where the diamond princess, the cruise ship, offjapan, where the timescale implied is that this disease may actually be active for much longer —— diamond princess. actually be active for much longer -- diamond princess. that's right, it's still not clear what the

maximum period of intubation is for this virus and that's very important to understand. and also there's a lot of information out there that suggests that the virus may be transmissible just before symptoms begin, not when you're asymptomatic but just as you're begin, not when you're asymptomatic butjust as you're developing symptoms. there's been evidence of that in germany, for example, when a woman who was developing symptoms took a medication which decreased herfever took a medication which decreased her fever but permitted her to spread the infection anyway. her fever but permitted her to spread the infection anywaylj her fever but permitted her to spread the infection anyway. i go back to this question of the speed of response, because it's very striking... we've talked about this emerging some time in december in china. it's the end of january before this global emergency is declared by the world health organization, there was pressure to do so sooner, but that's what's happened. there are those who think this solid response, to use your word, is actually a cautious response which may be fine but given the way things are developing, may not actually be adequate. certainly

the response that china has done is within their capacity to do. it's been a whole government reaction to this virus. by. flights going out of the area where the outbreak epicentre actually is, they delayed the arrival of cases in other countries, so that's been shown through epidemiological modelling to have been effective. so they've done other things that have also permitted the rest of the world to get ready... they've helped us by time? they've helped us by time. what about the who, some may say to cautious and too political, i say that not with a capital p, a small p, it's not unusualfor that not with a capital p, a small p, it's not unusual for politicians to end up doing thisjob and the chief medical officer has a medical background as well but i wonder if there's a danger that mitigates against a willingness to be potentially confrontational when it comes to the crunch. this is such a big issue that actually a bit of banging heads together might sometimes be necessary. the world

health organization is a political organisation. it's an organisation made of member states 194 members states. there's a technical response category within the who and that technical response capacity has been moving forward steadily since the beginning of the outbreak has been announced. into thousand three, working at the withheld, who —— in 2003, you lead the response to sars. is it of the same family as covid—19 broadly? it's a similar sort of respiratory infection? absolutely, it's the same type of virus. however, sars... it is low in the respiratory system but this coronavirus, covid—19, is high in the respiratory system. greater risk it could be trans by droplets. physically hire is what you mean —— transmitted. yes, and also spreading more easily with a cough or sneeze.

there we had this sars outbreak which effectively affected about 8000 plus people and led to over 750 death. we are already up to 80,000 people infected, as far as it's possible to know, thankfully lusting like the same scale of fatalities but still significant numbers of deaths —— nothing like. the contrast between the who response and then and now is striking. i was reading and now is striking. i was reading an article you wrote back in 2013 reflecting on the events of ten yea rs before, reflecting on the events of ten years before, where you talked of a case of a doctor treating patients with this mystery illness taken ill ona with this mystery illness taken ill on a flight home and as you wrote, "within two hours we were urgently reassessing the evidence and later that same morning we presented a summary to the director—general of the who, quickly comprehending the urgency and that morning he issued an unambiguous call for health authorities do well together worldwide to stop the disease in its tracks". i say again, has the

response this time not been a bit too solid and too cautious? this is a much different situation from what we understand. sars virus occurred from one or two events from animals to humans, causing an infection, and a few chains of transmission. it became amplified in hospital settings when health workers got infected. this outbreak, from what we understand, started explosively with many, many people infected at the same time. many, many different chains of transmission created... going into families where the majority of transmission appears to have occurred. doesn't that mean the response should be appropriately more urgent if you're talking about, as you said, an explosion of infection as opposed to a much more controlled and measured rate of infection? you know, countries report when they want to report and china reported when it felt it had the evidence that it should have two report. since then there's been quite active participation of china in providing information on a daily

basis to the world health organization, and also in providing other evidence that's necessary, including permitting a team of international experts to go in and sort out some of the information with them. what everyone is impressed with. .. the with them. what everyone is impressed with... the united states government is planning to cut the who funding by 53%. what would be the impact of that? that means they're planning the impact of that? that means they‘ re planning to the impact of that? that means they're planning to decrease their external funding, they're planning to decrease their externalfunding, which they're planning to decrease their external funding, which is they're planning to decrease their externalfunding, which is outside the normal ss contribution that the who gives. they will decrease their funding according to what's been said. that will certainly have an impact on the programmes that the world health organisation support, but usually they support individual programmes and not generic activities within the organisation —— world health organization. activities within the organisation -- world health organization. so you're not that worried by that decision? i'm very worried, every country should continue to contribute to their maximum possibility to the world health organization, which is the only agency that can help us co—ordinate

agency that can help us co—ordinate a response such as is going on now with the sars outbreak... the coronavirus outbreak. even president trump, though, seems to think this isa trump, though, seems to think this is a problem that is going to go away because the weather's going to get warmer, spring arrives and that will solve the problem for us. get warmer, spring arrives and that will solve the problem for uslj haven't seen that evidence and the virus is transmitting very well in singapore, which is a very tropical and warm climate. so if the evidence can be presented, i will believe it, but until i see the evidence i don't believe what's being said. you mentioned the chinese government and mentioned that they presented the evidence when they thought it was the right moment. there are less charitable views of what the chinese did and rory stewart says the decision by the world health organization to call the global health emergency at the end of january and not sooner was purely for political reasons, the desire not to offend the chinese government. what do you make of

this? i make that to all believe this? i make that to all believe this and are promulgating this idea. i don't say it is wrong, what i say is we need to pull together now and make sure that we do what we can to contain and stop the international spread of this outbreak is possible. isn't the problem that the type of prejudices let's not offend the chinese we want them to accommodate, we we re chinese we want them to accommodate, we were here with stars and at the time there were problems. it took a prominent doctor, china, for example failed to notify the who until several months after the virus was discovered, and then it took a prominent doctor in 2003, april of that year, to accuse beijing of covering up. only then did we start to see accurate reporting of numbers. in other words, the chinese government and there may be others of with this is true, unless the chinese government is pushed into it, it will not voluntarily provide that information and inadequate statistics mean you make

misjudgments. i look at it in a more positive manner. in 2003 during the sars outbreak it was not until the director—general accused china publicly of not providing information that information began to flow. this time that has not been necessary. the information has flowed and the information continues to flow with the team that just got back yesterday and spoke about the knowledge that they have gained from their travel to china. he wrote they spoke openly about china's relu cta nce spoke openly about china's reluctance to discuss the spread of spas within its borders. so in that sense, she did that, had that desirable effect. your argument appears to be that china is already acted voluntarily. really? ithink china did acted voluntarily. nobody forced them to report this and nobody knew about the outbreak outside of china and china did report it. why they reported, i

can't say, why they did not report it sooner, i do not know. the young doctor who died who was one of those who did try to reported, he found himself effectively told to sign a letter, a letter to colleagues in december two that he had found a number of cases, he was summoned to the public security bureau and told to signa the public security bureau and told to sign a letter accused of making false comments, that it severely disturbed the social order, warned that if he did he would be brought to justice and he that if he did he would be brought tojustice and he rode that if he did he would be brought to justice and he rode underneath, yes, ido to justice and he rode underneath, yes, i do understand that. that is not the attitude of a country that wa nts to not the attitude of a country that wants to share information, is it, about a potentially disastrous worldwide health crisis that is starting in its backyard. at that point in time it seems they were not ready to reported, that is right, and it is a shame because this was and it is a shame because this was an ophthalmologists who became infected, probably from coast that may close contact with the patient.

what was lost then, apart from his life and those of others, what was lost by them not acting sooner and sharing symptoms? as an epidemiologist? i cannot look backwards. all i can say is when these outbreaks occur it is very important to get onto them as soon as you can and understand how they are transmitted and understand the ease with which they may...” are transmitted and understand the ease with which they may... i take this, i take it back to this point again about what the director—general of the who did and perhaps that has been absent here, the confrontational approach, not for the sake of confrontation, not for the sake of confrontation, not for the sake of confrontation, not for the sake of grandstanding but an argument for saying we are in the middle of such a severe crisis you have public opinion on your side in terms of mobilising everything this planet can do to try and prevent this turning into a more serious crisis than it already is. isn't that the one time when you can say to those countries, embarrass them, use the bully pulpit, expose them to whatever ignominy is necessary

internationally to get them to co—operate. if you put it forward with the iranians of the chinese or anyone else, they carry on as they a lwa ys anyone else, they carry on as they always have and you try to do it when there is not a crisis going on, there is no incentive. this is the moment, this is the incentive. there is no incentive. this is the moment, this is the incentivem the director—general knew that this was occurring and that they had been an outbreak and it was being suppressed than i would have thought that the director—general would actually say we know about this outbreak and we want to learn more. in other words, the who did not know this was happening? in other words, the who did not know this was happening ?|j in other words, the who did not know this was happening? i do not know whether they knew will not stop have you ever asked the question? no, i have not. because i am interested in today. we have to move forward and get this under control if we can. but from sars, what happens today may provide you with lessons for the next time. i'm sure it will and am sure it will provide many. so perhaps these questions will need to be asked at some point? they may be. it may be useful. in iran, the president has promised transparency on numbers. this is another country facing a significant outbreak but he then told his canada colleagues we

should not let america mount a new virus. america is also struggling and this gets into politics and gets in the way of actually tackling the problem. politics to get in the way and what is what you need is that politics have not impeded the technical cooperation going on. i myself spoke with the public health institution in iran yesterday so i know what is going on there. advisory groups know what is going on andi advisory groups know what is going on and i am confident that we have the information we need. have you seen the video of the deputy health minister from seen the video of the deputy health ministerfrom monday of seen the video of the deputy health minister from monday of this week, standing next to the government spokesperson on iranians television ata spokesperson on iranians television at a news conference in which while he was speaking, the minister is standing next to him sweating profusely, dabbing, constantly dabbing his head with his

handkerchief are not looking very well. have you seen it? i have not seen that. it may be worth looking at it, because in the words of the abc news it would be fine if it were not so serious. the guy on the left was the deputy health minister and was the deputy health minister and was subsequently learned he had coronavirus. the government is literally saying there is nothing to worry about. as the problem. beautifully summed up by that image. governments that do not want to frighten or panic their public, perhaps, as you say, the who did not wa nt to perhaps, as you say, the who did not want to panic the public and therefore held back from advertising this crisis and saying it was a global emergency health concern earlier than january 30, but global emergency health concern earlier thanjanuary 30, but in the meantime people are getting infected. not only are they infected but some have died. in that kind of caution, that kind of politics be at the who or individual governments, ultimately cost lives. i could not agree more with you on that and this is late in the outbreak and there should be transparency. in every country, about what is going on

about where the outbreaks are occurring. what lessons do you draw from what has happened so far in tackling what is to come? what i have learned is that politics sometimes gets in the way of outbreak containment and response. but there is always a technical team working and technical areas in health in a way that the whole world can work together to stop the disease. in 19 70, in the 1970s, the world worked together. russia, the us everyone together to stop smallpox and eradicate smallpox. despite the political pressure of the time, despite the geopolitical pressures that were occurring, a public health goal was achieved. working together can overcome geopolitical differences. what is a prospect of being able to contain this virus, covid—19, and of able —— being able to treat it? that depends on several factors and one factor

that we do not understand is the transmissibility. the that we do not understand is the tra nsmissibility. the ease that we do not understand is the transmissibility. the ease of transmission from human to human. once we understand that, predictions can be made and we can only say from epidemiological modelling that if the reproductive rate of the possibility of transmissibility is high there will be a widespread community involvement. and right now it is high? right now involvement seems to mainly be in very close contacts seems to mainly be in very close co nta cts in seems to mainly be in very close contacts in families and health workers and others. 82% of cases in china are from close family contact. that is not community spread, that is household and hospital spread. thank you very much for being with us on thank you very much for being with us on hardtalk.

hello there. the next area of low pressure moving in will push into the south of the uk bringing a mixture of rain sleet and snow to parts of england and wales. some of this snow will be settling over the higher ground but may be sleet and wet snow down to low levels. likely to produce tricky driving conditions for the morning commute, crossing england and wales as i mentioned, the high ground which will see the settling snow so stay tuned to the weather forecast and your local radio if you head out. this is the culprit and this area of low pressure moving to the south of the uk on its northern way will encounter cold air. the m4 southwards generally should be rain but we will see snow on higher grounds of wales and towards the malvern hills and, for example, into the cotswolds. further north, clear and cold, a couple of wintry showers and an early risk of ice. through the morning then that area of rain sleet and snow will push eastwards through the morning seeing some slushy deposits or some

sleetiness across parts of the midlands, the northern home counties, over the chilterns and into east anglia but the whole thing will clear away by about lunchtime and the skies will brighten up with plenty of sunshine around so any light snow will be short lived. wintry showers across the north and it will be breezy and another chilly day temperatures ranging 6—9 degrees in the south. through thursday night, a few wintry showers continuing across scotland but a ridge of high pressure builds in and for many of us it should be dry with clear skies and turning cold with frost and some ice in places. you will see the temperature is beginning to rise across the south—west. that is because we have the next weather system moving in for friday and that will produce mild air to southern areas, quite a bit of rain and strengthening wind. starting cold and bright across the north and the east and then that rain will spill up from the south—west and some snow

on its leading edge across northern england to scotland and some settling snow on the hills but further south mainly rain and the temperature 10—11 degrees. any more rain here is very unwelcome. moving out of friday and into the weekend it looks like it remains unsettled. next front will spread a band of rain across the country and we could see a swathe of gales or severe gales, northern ireland, northern england and scotland late on saturday into sunday this next feature moves up from the south—west bringing more rain. it looks unsettled this weekend, quite windy at times particularly on saturday and we will see further rain in areas where we really don't need it so stay tuned to the forecast and head online to see all the latest weather warnings.

hello, this is the briefing, i'm samantha simmonds. our top stories: president trump tries to calm fears of the spread of the coronavirus, telling the american people to risk remains very low. meanwhile, international efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak intensify as my new cases are recorded outside china than inside. five people are killed at a brewing company in the us city of milwaukee, the gunman was a disgruntled former employee. and a perfume that smells ofjosef stalin's firing squads.