to the coronavirus in a single day. 260 people have died in the past 2a hours, bringing the total to more than 1,000. this, as officials warn that social distancing restrictions must be kept in place. the number of coronavirus—related deaths in the us has surged past 2,000, doubling within just two days. a quarter of the deaths are in new york state. president trump says he's considering putting new york and two other states under quarantine to slow the spread of the virus. italy has become the first country in which more than 10,000 people have died of the coronavirus. the economy minister says europe will need a great learn to relaunch its economy after the pandemic similarto its economy after the pandemic similar to the scheme funded rebuilding after the second world war. this is bbc news. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk with me, zeinab badawi. as the covid—19 pandemic takes hold, the capacity of governments around the world to respond is being seriously tested. my guest is the secretary general of the united nations, antonio guterres, who hasjust launched a humanitarian appeal focused mainly on helping a0 of the most vulnerable countries. he says that a global approach is the only way to fight the virus, and that without critical support, the impact of covid—19 will be deep and particularly severe on poorer nations. but how realistic are his proposals, and who will pay for them?

secretary general antonio guterres, welcome to hardtalk. you have described covid—19 as a threat to humanity. what do you mean by that and how worried are you? first of all, it's a pleasure to be with you again. well, it is clear. i mean, if this pandemic would be left alone, if you wouldn't be able to suppress it, it will reach millions and millions of people. it will have millions of people, victims, dying of it. and it is clearly the biggest threat to humanity that we have seen in the recent past. and that is one reason why it is so important that instead of acting separately, each one doing what each one wants, it is essential to have effective international cooperation, coordination, to defeat this virus,

to win this war against covid—19. but when people hear the secretary general of the united nations use such language as "millions could die," are you not going to scare people? and i put to you what professor michael levitt, who is a nobel laureate and stanford biophysicist who has done various projections, and he projects a quick coronavirus recovery. he told the la times this week we are going to be fine. what we need is to control the panic. as a matter of fact, what we are seeing is exponential increase of cases, everywhere in the world. we had the first death in china, then we are having it — the epicentre in europe. there is a strong risk of the epicentre to come to the united states. and we are seeing now in the global south. the global south is much less equipped to defeat the disease. we are seeing an enormous increase in cases globally. and the best scientific

evidence indicates that, unless there is a fairly strong effort to suppress the disease, these might reach — until the so—called herd immunity is reached, this might reach 60 to 70% of the global population. even if this disease kills less than other outbreaks, like ebola recently, this would always mean millions of people dying in the world, and this is absolutely unacceptable, also morally unacceptable. so we need to make sure that we have an articulated response, a coordinated response under the guidance of the who. and i believe the g20 meeting this week is a good opportunity to create a mechanism of coordination under the guidance of the who. an articulated response to be able to suppress collectively this virus, and then, once suppressed, to be able to contain it until a vaccine is found.

because only with a vaccine will we be able to eradicate the disease. and i truly believe that in the absence of an effectively coordinated action, if each country will go on acting by itself, we risk to have this pandemic with catastrophic impacts in people, and let's not forget, catastrophic impacts in the global economy, in the livelihoods, and especially, with the most vulnerable suffering the most. you've put a lot in that answer. let's just unpack it a little bit. you've just launched a humanitarian appeal to raise funds for developing nations, which you predict are going to be struggling to cope with the covid—i9. but i put it to you that 500,000 cases globally, nearly 20,000 deaths — should the un not have done something like this much sooner? well, probably, yes. we have been acting, but we believed at a certain moment

that we needed to enhance our response. there was the first appeal from the world health organization of $600 million. but this time, we need to look very carefully into those situations of extreme vulnerability. i'm talking about areas of conflict. i'm talking about fragile states, refugee camps, displaced people's camps, and all other situations in the poorest countries of the world, where the capacity to respond is much less effective. and the disease is now coming to those areas. and so what we want is to increase the medical capacity, increase the volume of equipment that is available, but also to look into health and water and sanitation. to look into all the things necessary to contain the spread of the disease. to look into livelihoods of the populations more affected. but this is just for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, and this is why it is

a drop in the ocean. we are talking about $2 billion when, for instance, the package being discussed in the us senate, just for the us economy, is $2 trillion. where is the money going to come from? and let me tell you what one former government minister in liberia, gyude moore, said during the ebola outbreak in 2014, that killed 11,000 people in west africa. and he said now, in the past you could look to the west for help, but they are battling the same thing so it is not clear any help is coming at all. so how confident can you be that the global south, about which you're so worried, is going to get the assistance it needs? it's a matter of enlightened self—interests. we are talking of a pandemic. now, first of all, our main objective with this appeal is to avoid the humanitarian support that we are already receiving for all other aspects —

water and sanitation, food, protection, shelter. in all of those vulnerable situations in the world, from syria to yemen, from south sudan to the drc — what we want is to make sure that we have additional support for covid—19, and that the money doesn't come from the humanitarian action that we are already having. but responding to your question, this is a matter of enlightened self—interest. if this pandemic is controlled in the developed world, but if it is left spreading like wildfire in the developing countries, we would have millions of cases, millions of people dying, but not only that. that will create the opportunity for mutations of the virus. and the virus can come back in a way that even vaccines that are developed will not be effective even in the developed world. so there is no way to fight this with half of humanity. either you fight it globally, or you risk to be defeated by the virus, and we cannot be defeated by the virus. are you not trying to scare

richer nations by kind of saying, if you don't fight the virus in poorer countries, it leaves the virus free to circle back around the globe and affect you ? it is not a matter of scaring, this is the reality. this is the reality. it's in the enlightened self—interest of the developed world to support the developing world, to suppress this virus, in coordination with the more developed countries of the world. and that is a very important thing for the g20 to take into account. i believe we need in the g20 a mechanism, under the guidance of the world health organization, in order for the countries of the g20 to be able to, together, combining different approaches in some countries, the emphasis more on testing and tracing and quarantine, and less in lockouts. countries with less testing capacity, if there are more lockouts. in any case, it needs to be very tough everywhere and in a combined way,

articulated way. the g20 represents 80% of the world economy. but that is not enough. even if it is together, by the g20 countries, suppressed in that area of the world, it is absolutely essential not to leave other countries behind. and that is why i've been advocating for a very strong package, a package of the level of two digits of the global economy. part of it, of course, will be spent by each country in itself. you can see what the united states is doing, what the european union is doing, what china has done. but we need to have $2—3 billion to be able to support the response to covid—19 in developing countries as a whole. not only the most vulnerable situations, like we are addressing now with this appeal, but in all of the developing countries as well. and you have the imf, already with $1 trillion of lending capacity. you have the possibility of special drawing rights to be issued. you have swaps among central banks that can help, especially emerging economies. you have a number of instruments that can be put in place

in a coordinated way, and we can win this battle if we act together. you made reference to the fact that the united states is going to be pushing through trillions of dollars to ensure that covid—19 doesn't have such a detrimental impact on the united states. are you kind of saying that, look, rich countries like the us could cough up more for the developing nations? is that the kind of message you're trying to put over — that they could do more? yes, but there are instruments that allow it to happen. as i said, the imf has already $1 trillion capacity to lend. we are in a war situation with the virus. we need a war economy. and, as the us is printing money in the us, we can do it globally in a way that is effective to address the challenges of the covid—19. alright, you are clearly arguing for a coordinated international response to deal with what is after all a global threat.

what do you think about the way individual governments have been responding to the pandemic? we've seen quite a difference in approach. france, for instance, has more stringent measures than the united kingdom, which has taken more of a wait—and—see approach. donald trump in united states seems to be more relaxed and says he wants to see the us economy going back to normal at easter, 12 april. what's your sense of how national governments are responding? are you content? well, of course i'm not happy with the present situation. there is an effective dysfunctionality in the way all this is all happening. we have not a global government system. of course, the world health organization is the un authority on health. they have issued guidelines, but many of the countries have not respected them, or sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. so the only way out is through effective international cooperation, and i believe the g20

can be the nucleus of that international cooperation, aiming at acting together in an articulated way. but look, i mean, this is not only the covid—19. if you look at peace and security — i mean, the relationship between the biggest powers has never been as dysfunctional. the security council has been paralysed in relation to many of the conflict situations in the world. for climate change, it has been so difficult to bring people together. so, we are witnessing a serious problem, and that problem is that international cooperation has never been at this low level, and we need to make sure people understand that as threats are becoming global, covid—19 is another one, climate change already existed, terrorism, global terrorism is there, as these threats are becoming global, we effectively need to have a very strong commitment to international cooperation, and to strengthen multilateral institutions. i know this is not popular in some media. i know that many think that they can do it by themselves,

that each one by itself is — or himself is the best way to deal with these problems. but the reality shows, and the covid—19 is showing it dramatically, eitherwejoin, either we are in solidarity, either we are together, or we can be defeated. secretary general, you sound as a man, really, a world leader, in despair about the state of the lack of international cooperation. what do you think lies behind this dire situation, where key powers are not cooperating in the way you would like to see them? what's the reason? we are in a transition moment. we lived in a bipolar world and we lived in a unipolar. now we are in a kind of a chaotic situation. it's not yet multi—polar or unipolar or bipolar. relations are unclear. we are seeing more and more spoilers in international relations, less capacity to control them. and as i said, relations between the biggest powers have

never been so dysfunctional as they are today. crosstalk why, can i ask you to clarify? are you talking about united states and china? could you be more specific? well it is very specific, the united states and china are two fundamental pillars of the global economy and they need to come together to fight covid—19. i mean, there are problems, there are questions, there are eventually failures here and there. but instead of making that the issue, the issue is to bring people together and look at global supply chains. you need to have ventilators everywhere, you need to have tests everywhere, you need to have medical equipment everywhere. i mean, it's a good reason to do it in a way in which there is a common planning, a common supply chain and the possibility to provide it to people everywhere in the same circumstances. this is not a moment to fight each other, this is not the moment for division — this is a moment to come together.

it's not easy in the present world and we know all the contradictions that exist but the choice is between chaos and united action to respond to a very dramatic threat that humankind is facing. so it's not helpful when you hear comments from the trump administration, including the president himself, referring to covid—19 as that chinese virus? i think this is not the moment for anyone to blame others. probably, i believe in the end we will need to do lessons learned and need to see what failed and why it failed in several parts of the world, but this is the moment to come together, to unite and to defeat covid—19. to rescue our lives. i want to put to you an alternative view which is notjust compounded by president trump, but we have also seen for example, philip thomas of bristol university in britain, a professional of risk management saying, "i'm worried that in order to solve one problem we will create a bigger problem," and he says keeping the economy going is crucial otherwise measures will do more harm than good, and that kind of reflects president trump's view that he says

if it were up to the doctors, they may say let us shut down the entire world and you cannot do that. do you accept there has got to be a trade—off between killing the economy and tackling covid—19? but that is exactly the reason why i am saying we need to have together a package of, a double digit of the percentage of global economy, and a package that each country can do by itself, but obviously it is much more powerful if everything is combined. a package that today is different from 2008. it is no longer to rescue the financial system, this is not a financial crisis, this is a human crisis. this package needs to be put in place in order to support salaries of those that are losing theirjobs.

in order to support companies for them to preserve those jobs and preserve their existence. in order to keep households afloat, keep companies afloat, especially small and medium—sized business. in order to have the global economy able to survive this crisis, and then, to have also a concerted action in relation to the exit strategy and in relation to the, i would say, recovery of the economy, with an opportunity. this is an opportunity to have a recovery that can be of a more sustainable and inclusive economy. we don't need to rebuild everything as it was, we can do it much better in the future. and who takes the leadership for that? you've mentioned the g20 and you can look to them, but shouldn't the united nations do that? after all, the world health organization is part of the un family, and surely you should be saying, i want the united nations empowered, which is the point that professor ian goldin makes, a professor of development and globalisation, we need

to empower the un so that we can come together to tackle this threat. why don't you say i'm antonio guterres, i want to be the focal point of tackling this covid—19? this is not a question of narcissism. what we need is a concerted action, and the un is ready to do whatever the un is asked for. we are now, for instance, putting together all our supply chain capacities, in order to offer the international community a possibility to be much more effective in relation to, for instance, medical equipment in all parts of the world. but i believe the g20 represents 80% of the world economy. the leaders of the g20 have an opportunity, with no other similar, in the concentration of power, because power is not in the un. power, whether we like it or not, is in the member states. they are coming together, 80%, they have the chance to prove a coordinated action. in terms of the message you would like to give to the world in terms of how they should respond to covid—19, young people in particular, dr tedros ghebreyesus, the director general

of the world health organization, has said to them, you are not invincible, don't think this is just something that affects older people or people with underlying health conditions, what's your public health message to the world? and un is ready to fully support it. i could of course be very happy if there would be a global agreement to increase the governors‘ powers that could be placed in the un, but that is not my objective. my objective, at the present moment, is not to stress the un. my objective is to help rescue the world in relation to covid—19. you have a voice though and i ask you to use it now. be responsible, be smart, but above all, understand that only with solidarity we can defeat this disease. only with solidarity but also with a vaccine, which is something that you referred to earlier on in this interview, so where do you think we stand with that? are you optimistic about us having one quite soon? and are you also confident that

when it is developed, it will be shared amongst all the countries that need it, in particular poorer countries? i am not an expert, so i cannot say i am optimistic. i insist that everybody should do everything to make it happen as soon as possible, which means working together instead of competing among the different research centres on the different countries, and i think it is absolutely vital that when the vaccine is distributed, to be distributed globally and not to have the privileged having the vaccine and the poor submitted to the disease. and you also mentioned that the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are people living in conflict areas, and refugee camps. of course, as a former head of the united nations high commission for refugees you know very well that what jan egeland

from the norwegian refugee council says — how can you do social distancing when thousands of people are crowded together in a tiny camp or refugee settlement, this is a disaster waiting to happen. you have got to make sure that people like those are protected. it is a nightmare that we face. the united nations high commission for refugees, together with organization for international migration, many ngos and the red cross are coming together. the main objective is to prevent, to avoid at all costs the virus to come to these settlements. some are isolated, others unfortunately not, and at the same time to boost to the extent possible the local capacity and what washington's facilities, these disinfectant devices, and all other mechanisms, the medical equipment, the medical capacity, but i have to say looking into refugee camps, or into the slums of many of the big

cities in the developing world, these can be an effective nightmare and one reason more to do everything possible to support these countries for them not to become the weak point in the world. let's never forget one thing. our global health system is as strong as our weakest health system in the world. so there's all reasons to mobilise resources to support those that have less capacity today. finally, antonio guterres, i want you to just reflect on how you think the covid—19 crisis is going to affect the world? what is the impact going to be socially, economically, politically? what is the long—term impact in your view and could there be some positive benefits, like people travel less for reasons other than pressing ones? i think one thing is clear, the digital world will have a huge boost. i think one of the big questions of humankind is how to make sure

that artificial intelligence, cyberspace in general, are a force for good. and it is clear that we will have a boost in the digital world, digital technologies because they are proving their extreme importance now to allow us to go on working, but largely digital communication mechanisms and using digital instruments, so the digital world will have a boost and there must be a lot of international corporations making sure that we also address the challenges that it poses, but to make it really a force for good and for a much broader capacity, to answer to the challenges of development in the world. on the other hand, i think this will give us an opportunity to look into climate change seriously. it is not through the virus that we fight climate change but there is a clear demonstration that when we rebuild our economies, we will have the chance to do it in a more sustainable way. we don't need, now that we are consuming less energy, now that we are moving less, it is a moment to think, how we consume energy, how we move,

and to do it better in the future. and in relation to many other aspects of international cooperation, i hope, that this will be a kind of wake—up call to make the world understand how important multilateralism is, how important global governance is and how important it is for international corporations today to be the normal way in which countries relate to each other. secretary general antonio guterres, in new york at united nations headquarters, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. hello. as far as the clocks are concerned, sunday is the first day of british summertime. not so for the weather. in fact, it's going to feel more like winter. it'll be cold, particularly when we factor in the strength

of the wind, and there will be a few wintry showers around as well. having said that, high pressure is not too far away, sitting just to the north—west of the british isles. quite strong high pressure actually. so there will be a lot of dry weather around. but the flow of the air of high pressure in a clockwise direction means that we are bringing the winds from the north or north—east, and brisk air, bringing cold air our way. there will be some showers throughout the day. wintry showers in the north and the east over high ground, mainly low in low levels. but there will be a lot of dry weather around. some spells of sunshine, large amounts of cloud as well. but the wind will be noticeable in england and wales with gusts of a0 miles an hour for some spots, up to 50 miles an hour for some eastern and southern coasts. not as windy for northern ireland and scotland, but still quite breezy. temperatures on the thermometer between five and 10 degrees. factoring in the wind, this is what it will feel like. for some of us, it will feel not much better than freezing.

now, as we go through sunday night, we will continue to see a lot of cloud working its way down from the north. i think the increasing chance of seeing showers into northern and eastern areas, some of these wintry over high ground. but at low levels mostly rain showers. at this stage, it might not be quite as chilly. yes, still a frost for some of us on monday morning, but, generally speaking, monday should feel a little less cold, partly because the winds will be a little later. yes, it will still be breezy, but not as windy. some showers in northern and eastern scotland, northern england, maybe is well throughout the day. but temperatures up just a touch, between nine and 11. as the high—pressure slides away slightly westwards into tuesday, we start to bring the air from a different place, the air coming more from the atlantic. so not quite as cold on tuesday. large amounts of cloud bubbling up through the day. there will be one or two showers. those temperatures, again, between nine and 11 degrees. as we look deeper into

the coming week, our area of high pressure still not too far away, but like later in the week no pressure will develop to the north. that will david sway into the north—east of the uk, and that will bring another plunge of cold air into northernmost areas. perhaps some rain, perhaps sleet and snow in the high areas. but it will turn milder and will stay mostly dry.

welcome to bbc news. i'm simon pusey. our top stories: the uk records its highest number of deaths from coronavirus bringing the total to more than a thousand — as officials warn that social distancing restrictions must be kept in place. as the death toll doubles in the us, president trump decides against imposing a quarantine on new york. in italy, more than 10,000 people have now died from covid—19 — more than any other country. and panama's government has given permission to a stricken cruise ship to travel through its canal after blocking the liner over coronavirus fears.