the british government says a shipment of 84 tonnes of personal protective equipment, which should already have arrived from turkey, had been delayed till on monday. more than 16,000 people have now died in the uk from coronavirus—related conditions. more protests have been held in several cities across the us, calling for state governors to ease the economic restrictions, which were put in place to stop the spread of covid—19. president trump has signalled his support for the demonstrations. in other news: police in canada say a man has shot dead at least 13 —— 10 people in a rural community in nova scotia. reports say one police officer was killed and that the 51—year—old suspect is also dead after going on the run for hours. the prime minister has paid tribute to the response to the attack. now on bbc news,

it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i am stephen sackur. with nations across the world struggling to contain the coronavirus pandemic, there has never been a greater need for an internationally co—ordinated response, and that is where the un agency the world health organization should come in. but right now, the who is itself at the centre of a political storm. president donald trump has withdrawn american funding, accusing the who of being china centric. my guest today is the who special envoy for covid—19, doctor david nabarro. is his agency failing its biggest test?

david nabarro in geneva, welcome to hardtalk. thank you very much. let us hardtalk. thank you very much. let us start with an overview, as a vetera n us start with an overview, as a veteran of fighting disease from malaria after cholera to ebola, you have now become the who special envoy on covid—19. are you more worried today than you were a month ago about the way it is spreading around the world 7 ago about the way it is spreading around the world? i was always anxious about this, ever since i first heard about it, and i have got increasingly anxious as the pandemic has gone on. you see, we are beginning to get some sense that the outbreak can be controlled in europe and in the us, but that is as a result of very rigourous physical distancing through lockdown. my

concern is that the virus hasn't gone away during these lockdowns and that as the lockdowns are released, if we are not fully defended, that the outbreaks will build up again, andi the outbreaks will build up again, and i am really worried about what is happening in poor countries onto accounts. one is that they have really wea k accounts. one is that they have really weak services compared with the advanced countries, and secondly, that the lockdowns that have had to be introduced in so many countries now are also having impacts on people botherfood security, people's nutrition and increasing positive. you regarded as inevitable, some have said, that ultimately pandemic will sweep through the most vulnerable countries, i am thinking perhaps of yemen, of the situation in northern syria, pretty broken like venezuela. will they all ultimately be hit hard by this pandemic? it certainly will bea by this pandemic? it certainly will be a threat to every country and every population in the world. so

the only way we are going to be able to get on top of it and get ahead of it is if every society everywhere is knowing about it and is able to interrupt transmission for themselves. a really important point is to stress that it is not going to suddenly go away, it is going to stay with us for the foreseeable future. so this capacity to defend against it and to learn how to live with the constant threat of the virus is going to be the key for the future of humanity. in that context, how disappointing is it to you that the world health organization right now, farfrom being the sort the world health organization right now, far from being the sort of spearhead of a global attempt to control the virus, right now, the world health organization is riven with political divisions. you have the united states withdrawing funding, you have other politicians criticising you, and you have, let's face it, a profound credibility

problem. first of all, i want to stress that the way in which this virus has been tackled is through the most extraordinary network of public health experts throughout the world. now, the public health community sees the world health organization as its focal point we have all worked as either members of the world health organization or as pa rt the world health organization or as part of networks of the world health organization, and for the public health community, there is absolutely no question, the world health organization is our lead organisation. we don't have a problem with its credibility. if there are political leaders who have problems with the world health organization, that is for them to sort out. remember, the wh go is governed by 194 member states as they are called, and the who personnel operate under that government structure. that is a bureaucratic sort of process behind the wh go. ijust want

bureaucratic sort of process behind the wh go. i just want to bureaucratic sort of process behind the wh go. ijust want to get down to brass tacks. there is a strong feeling in strong —— let some quarters that the who colluded in a cover—up of the beginnings of the outbreak of covid—19 in china. is that the case? absolutely not. i would like to say it a second time. absolutely not. if you are so sure, explained to me, while we now have evidence that the chinese authorities covered up four weeks knowledge that they had that this was an extremely dangerous new virus that was being transferred from human to human, and the world health organization failed, for week upon week, to flood that up. of course, what we do in the world health organization, as always happens, is a very detailed and forensic examination of exactly what happened on what days, whom knew what, who

told her what, and that will be the right thing to do. when i was working on ebola in 2014, there were many accusations against different organisations of failure to act on time, and necessary investigations we re time, and necessary investigations were done, but they were done after were done, but they were done after we got on top of the outbreak. what matters now, and i want to stress this, is that everybody everywhere focuses on the job that has to be done stop we have a massive global emergency, and it is absolutely essential that we all focus on that. for us to be distracted and asked to do an enquiry right in the middle of everybody working flat out to try to keep people together to do what is necessary , keep people together to do what is necessary, to do with this virus is frankly... i understand that, and it isa frankly... i understand that, and it is a very important point you make, but nonetheless, it isn'tjust about investigations of the past. it is about ongoing credibility, because

we all need to know that the who, when it works with national governments, is able to access all of the data that governments are being transparent, are being honest about what is happening in their territory, and that therefore, the who is a network which is sharing genuine information, and right now, we can't be sure of that. we have just learned the official figures from wuhan for the numbers killed by covid—19 were off by 50%. what else don't we know about the way this virus is working? that is a super complex question to answer. i hope you will give me the time to answer it, and perhaps i have to ask you to repeat part of it. let's deal with the figures. i would like you just to check what has been happening in the uk in the recent past. we were told, i believe, overthe the uk in the recent past. we were told, i believe, over the last 24 hours, that the uk death estimates have had to increase because they

found that they hadn't got all the deaths that were bubbly covid related in their figures deaths that were bubbly covid related in theirfigures because they were dealing with them primarily on the basis of nhs results, and then they find there we re results, and then they find there were additional deaths from people in residential institutions. the same for other countries as well. revision of death numbers during an outbreak is very common. and viewers should not believe thatjust because death numbers have been reviewed eyes, that means there is concealment. secondly, the world health organization is not a global international health inspectorate. it isa international health inspectorate. it is a brilliant organisation that works in the way that it was set up to deal with information that is provided to it by individual members. it cannot compel governments to release information, it doesn't have the power, and that is the way in which we always worked, and that, i presume, is the way we're going to continue to work

u nless way we're going to continue to work unless governments give us different rules to work by. i understand that point, and it is an important one, but let us forget that your boss, doctor ted ross, the head of the who, went to beijing, and in the course of his conversations, he heaped praise upon the chinese response to covid—19. now... knowing what we know, do you deeply regret that? can i interrupt you at this point? it is really important that your viewers understand exactly what the doctor was doing. he was praising the way in which the chinese government responded to the outbreak when they realise what was going on. they did the number of things that every other country should be doing. they informed their people what was happening, they reinforce public health services, they repurposed hospitals and they got the whole of government to focus

on the need to stop movement out of wuhan, to stop the disease spreading elsewhere in the country. that was praised because it was the right thing to do. other countries have done the same, particularly countries that were affected by sars in 2003. that was what the doctor is praising and he has encouraged other countries to read the report of what we have seen was happening in china during february and to a prior those finding themselves. that was correct, as my view as a public health professional, that was the right thing to do. what do you say them to people, and we will talk about donald trump in a minute, but people who actually have a lot of time for the who who have even worked alongside it, people are david fidler, he has been a co nsulta nt david fidler, he has been a consultant to the who, who says we have had a situation since the beginning of the new year, where it looks like the who doesn't want to exercise its authority when it came

to its interventions with china. what do you say to that? well, of course, the enquiries will be done. those of us who are working on this right now believe that the world health organization has acted within the authorities that it has, and i am going to continue to say that evenif am going to continue to say that even if you push me to try not to say it. i also want to stress the following. the world health organization has been very clear in the middle of january that there was a sense that this was a major and serious disease. on the 14th of january, that concern was expressed in press briefings and other communications, and it has been the same ever since. take this virus seriously. act quickly when you have got cases within your country. do not... do not behave as if it is a mild disease, do not treat it as if it is flu. and that advice has been the drumbeat that has come from who since january. understood, and we will get your advice to governments

and people around the world in just and people around the world in just a moment. butjust one more point. taiwan, the government of taiwan said it sent information to you at the who in late december, describing their fear that human to human transmission of covid—19, we didn't call it that then, but what we now know as covid—19 was already happening. they say they got no response from you and there are many people concerned that because of your... who's close relationship with the chinese government, that anything that came from taiwan was not taken seriously. is that true? well, that is not true, so let me just give you the facts as i understand them. and i want to stress, i was not working for who at the time, i started working as a special and by initially at the end of january —— let envoy. on special and by initially at the end ofjanuary —— let envoy. on december 31, china reported that it found a cluster of pneumonia like illness in

wuhan, in whom province. and that report went to the who —— hubei province. authorities in taiwan wrote to who, say we have heard that there is an outbreak of atypical pneumonia in wuhan. can you tell us anything about it? the who, as far asi anything about it? the who, as far as i understand, was not given any information from taiwan that was different from what they receive from the government of china. so, there will of course be an investigation, and i am sure there will be more to be found, but that is the information that i have also and so it doesn't indicate that who was given information by taiwan, that he did not have from china. you know as well as i do, donald trump doesn't buy that. let's look at the bigger picture of the relationship with the united states. donald trump waited out, the who blew it. for

some reason, funded mostly by the us and get they are, he says, very china centric. he has pulled the $400 million or so that us ports to who funds every year, you have clearly a fundamental problem now with the united states. as a veteran fighter of global disease, how do you respond to what donald trump has done? i have worked in global health really for more than 40 years and i have worked in the international system, with who and other organisations for more than 17 yea rs. organisations for more than 17 years. the most significant support in terms of personnel, in terms of partnership and funding is the united states of america. we have a lwa ys united states of america. we have always had an absolutely superb relationship with the us. and we continue to have that relationship, us experts participated in the mission to china, us experts are embedded in who's emergency response

programme. us experts have been co nsta ntly programme. us experts have been constantly working with who even recently, particularly those who are responsible for the control of communicable diseases. it is not true to say that who is anything other than very close to the united states. as it should be because it has so many superb experts on whom we and the world depend. you have to recognise reality. donald trump has declared he doesn't believe in the credibility of your organisation today. gordon brown described his mood as self—harm, an act of sabotage, many would it as. you see in that way? i really do not wa nt to you see in that way? i really do not want to use any words to criticise any president of any country that is pa rt any president of any country that is part of the international system. the way in which the international system works is by consent and by

cooperation. when you've got a giant emergency like we have at the moment, the most important requirement is that all leaders work together to make sure that the wellbeing of 7.8 billion people is maximised. if one head of state decides that he wants to move away from that global consensus, that's not a problem just for the world health organization, it is a problem for the world. and it's a particularly serious problem if it is the leader of the organisation that provides the majority of funding to our system. let us look forward then, if we may. doctor tedros, your boss, said the world, all doctors had to be test, test, test. south korea and germany have conducted mass testing which appears to have been very important to putting a lid on the curve of infections. they have had success. other countries including the united

kingdom have not tested in the same way and their curve has not yet come down in the same way. are you ready to call that countries like the uk for a fundamental failure? the world health organization is not able to callout countries and criticise them. it's not how it works. what them. it's not how it works. what the world health organization does is it identifies approaches that look as though they have been successful. approaches that have been most successful in this disease have been to interrupt transmission. it is easy to interruptions mission if you can test people to see if they have the virus. —— interrupted transmission. many countries have upgraded their capacity to test. it's a tricky test to do. those countries that have done so and have distributed testing widely have been able to get on top of the disease. i think the challenge is for poorer countries that are not able to rapidly upgrade testing. then we are doing everything possible to help

them get access to just and also if they can get access to tests, how to best interrupted transmission on the basis of what we coal symptom —based diagnosis. i'm interested in your contention that it is absolutely not the who's role or responsibility to coal nations out. two brief questions for you. when we see china, it seems still happy to tolerate the so—called wet markets in cities like wuhan, where live, wild animals are sold in marketplaces alongside other foodstuffs and we believe that may well be the way in which covid—19 transferred to the human population. isn't it time for you and others at the top of the who to say this is not acceptable, it must stop? we can't say is not acceptable and it must. but we can say that all the evidence suggests that wet markets

and the eating of bush meat and similar practices are contributing to an increased risk of zoo anodic disease and we really need to avert that. then we need to redesign the who to give it more deep in power, otherwise what's the point? stephen, you might want to redesign the who, imight want you might want to redesign the who, i might want to redesign the who, but the who is governed by the world's nations. they decide the mandate for the organisation. they will no doubt review what is happening as a result of this and decide whether they want to change the mandate. but for the moment, the who has been given the powers to advise and to provide guidance and to review, but it does not instruct. will there be any easy exit from this? i'm guessing your answer is no, but i'm also guessing that actually you, in the course of this interview, have suggested that we

have two think of this not in terms of weeks and months but maybe even yea rs before a of weeks and months but maybe even years before a semblance of normality is restored to our global cultures and societies. is it like that? there are countries that are showing us that there are ways to continue with social and economic activity despite the fact the virus isa activity despite the fact the virus is a continuing threat. we build on the experiences of those countries to establish guidance for the world. and that suggests that if we can transition out of the present situation, living with covid—19, provided we set up defences and communities everywhere and provided we have clear protocols for how going to react two outbreaks. this gets down to specifics. one small point and confused about, you in a previous interview suggested you thought people around the world would have to get used to wearing face masks. that was your opinion but then the who official opinion is

still that the general public shouldn't wear face masks, still that the general public shouldn't wearface masks, only healthcare and other care workers need to wear protective face masks. so what is the advice? the who was is clear. there is a shortage of high—quality masks that protect everybody properly against getting infected by this disease. these are the n95 or ffp masks that filter out small particles. we want to make sure these are kept discipling silly for health workers to keep them safe. —— kept aside preferentially. we wa nt safe. —— kept aside preferentially. we want them to be first in line that his master and they are not sequestered by people who are worried about their own safety. secondly, people who have got the disease ought to be able to wear face coverings to reduce their risks. thirdly, people whose occupations require them to be close to others and they can't avoid it ought to also be wearing face coverings. fourthly, andy thevenard has been clear on this. if the wider

community is to start interacting and not being able to be physically distancing all the time, then they should wear face coverings. there is a bit of difference between the very sophisticated mast that are expensive and face coverings that we make ourselves, they are not as effective, but i believe and i think the who is increasingly of the opinion that broader face coverings are going to be necessary as part of the collective strategy to suckle theirs. but we don't want health workers to be without protection, and that's the key point. to be realistic, you are suggesting that as the united states, europe, and we see it already, start to try to find ways to selectively ease the so—called lockdown, you appear to be suggesting that covid—19 haven't gone away and every second, third, fourth, maybe multiple waves of infection. —— and even multiple

waves of infection. this virus isn't going to go away, period. that means we have to have one of two things. either we have to have a situation where there is a treatment so everybody who has the disease can ta ke everybody who has the disease can take that treatment and then not be ill and not be at risk of death, or there has to be some kind of vaccine that enables everybody to be immunised and to be defended against from the virus, as has happened for other virus diseases. it's just we don't have a vaccine and we don't know how long it's going to take to develop one. and we don't have a treatment, again, we don't know how long that is going to take to come along. so we all have to learn to live with this virus, do our business with this virus, to have social relations with this virus in our presence and not have to continuously be in lockdown because of the widespread infections that can occur. david nabarro, i thank

you very much indeed forjoining me from geneva. thank you very much. hello. although monday gets off to a fairly chilly start, temperatures are going to rebound. garden time by the afternoon. quite pleasant with plenty of sunshine out there, although you'll need to take some shelter from a brisk easterly breeze. and there is a lot of fine, dry weather to come this week. high pressure close to scandinavia — its influence being felt across the british isles, blocking any weather systems from coming our way. and these are your starting numbers for monday morning, then. most of us above freezing but there will be a frost again across parts of highland scotland, but again, those temperatures are going to rebound. and while most are sunny, there is a bit more cloud around

the channel islands, perhaps parts of cornwall, the isles of scilly, a shower can't be ruled out but most places will stay dry. this is a brisk easterly wind, though, especially in england and wales, average speeds just 30—40 miles an hour and it's coming in from quite a chilly north sea at this time of year where temperatures are around 7—9 degrees. so the air is cooled, closer to that temperature. and you'll notice that right along north sea coasts if you are outside here, we are around 10—14 degrees, whereas elsewhere, although there is still a breeze to notice, temperatures will be rising mid—to—high teens and close to 20 celsius in the warm spots here. now, as we go on through monday night, that breeze stays with us, we are mainly clear, that will prevent much of the uk from seeing a frost again. a frost is possible across parts of scotland. and the rain and showers mayjust pep up towards the channel islands,

parts of cornwall, south devon and into to the isles of scilly. uncertainty about who gets what but the potential is there for something wet, anyway, overnight into first thing on tuesday. and then on tuesday, it's for most of us another day of sunshine with an easterly wind and those temperatures contrasting between the north sea coasts and those elsewhere that could see temperatures rising close to 20 celsius. taking a look at the big picture on wednesday to thursday. the isobars open up, the winds turn lighter and it looks to be turning warmer as well. in fact, by thursday, some spots will be in the mid—20s. friday into the weekend, temperatures start to come down a few degrees. more cloud around, there is a chance of seeing some showers. but until then, it's another dry april week to come with plenty of sunshine — a brisk easterly breeze, especially along north sea coasts.

this is bbc news. i'm simon pusey, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world: president trump says more than four million americans have been tested for the coronavirus and many more testing kits are being made available. the uk hospital death toll passes 16,000, as healthcare staff call for more equipment to protect them against coronavirus. we'll look at the different solutions to different covid—19 problems, with our correspondents around the world. how blood from covid—19 survivors could be used in a new treatment for those infected. one other main headline — a guman in a rural community in nova scotia in canada kills at least thirteen people.