britain's prime minister boris johnson is back at work after recovering from coronavirus. he says there are "real signs" that the country is passing through the peak of the pandemic. he warned that lifting the restrictions too soon could lead to a new wave of deaths. president trump has said china could have stopped the coronavirus from spreading around the world, and that serious investigations are under way into beijing's actions. mr trump was speaking outside the white house in his first briefing since friday. he also announced plans to increase testing. el salvador‘s president has ordered officials to adopt tough new measure as criminal gangs seek to take advantage of the pandemic. more than 50 people have been killed in three days of violence in the tiny central american country. nearly half of the deaths were reported on friday. the were reported on friday. new regime in prisons har alarm the new regime in prisons has raised alarm about a possible new wave of infections.

it is liz30am. you up—to—date on the headlines. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the coronavirus pandemic has given humanity and almighty shock stop here we are in our technologically advanced, interconnected societies, now living in lockdown, fearful for our health and the future of our economies. so what better time than now to talk to my guest today, the bestselling israeli author and historian, yuval noah harari. what are the lessons we can learn from the impacts of coronavirus?

yuval noah harari, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, thank you for inviting me. you are known around the world for taking the grand historical perspective of us, homo sapiens, and you have described with wonderful detail how our extraordinary cognitive abilities have led to a mastery on our environment. but this seems to be a moment when we are learning that our mastery of the environment is extremely fragile. do you see it that way? yeah, it is very fragile, though i have to say we're still in a much better position with to infectious diseases then perhaps on any previous time in history since the agricultural revolution. you know, this isn't the middle ages, and we are not facing the black death. when the black death spread, nobody understood what was happening, what was killing people. todayit happening, what was killing people. today it took us just two weeks to identify the coronavirus behind the

present epidemic, and to sequence its entire genome. of course, we still do not have the power to stop evolution, to stop nature. pathogens continued to jump from animals to humans and continue to mutate. so they will continue to be epidemics. but our ability to understand what is happening, and to some extent control it, is much bigger than ever before. i understand that point, but maybe there is something else, too. maybe our expectations of how science can protect us are very different now. perhaps in the middle ages when faced with plagues, human beings accepted the inevitability that many would die, and now we find that many would die, and now we find that extremely difficult to accept. completely. one of the main laws of history, if you can call it a law,

is that as conditions improve, expectations increase. so people can remain as dissatisfied as vulnerable —— or as vulnerable as before. so you are perfectly correct that as oui’ you are perfectly correct that as our civilisation becomes more sophisticated and powerful, our expectations also increase. so in a way, that sense of fragility also increases. and i am mindfulthat just one month ago, it seems a long time ago now, just a month ago you wrote this. "humankind is now facing a global crisis, perhaps the greatest of our generation. the decisions people and governments ta ke decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks could shape the world for years to come. we must act quickly and decisively". 0k, we must act quickly and decisively". ok, one month on, how are we doing? not so good. you know, in some countries, in some cases, the response has been quite effective. but maybe the most important level, which is the global level, we are

not seeing any kind of real global leadership, any kind of real global plan. not on the healthcare front, and even less on the economic front. and the big worry is what will happen as the crisis intensifies, not only in the developed world, but also in developing countries, in south america, africa, south asia, and if we don't get a kind of global safety net, or a global plan, the economic and political consequences could be really catastrophic and could be really catastrophic and could poison international relations for yea rs could poison international relations for years to come. so as an historian, as a guy who has looked at the nature of leadership over many centuries, wire, right now, at this moment of great need for global leadership, is it so very lacking? —— why, right now? leadership, is it so very lacking? -- why, right now? partly it is because we are paying the price for recent developments in the

international system. over the past few years, international system. over the past few yea rs, before international system. over the past few years, before the academic —— epidemics, we saw the rise of extreme nationalism and isolationism, and most notably, maybe in the previous leaders of the international community, like the united states, and previous crises like the ebola mac epidemic of 2014 and the global economic crisis of 2008, the united states played the role of global leader when it was quite effective. —— ebola epidemic. now, the current administration has basically abdicated the job of global leader, telling the world but it's no longer cares about the world, about humanity, it cares only about america. —— that it no longer ca res. about america. —— that it no longer cares. you have alighted upon donald trump asa cares. you have alighted upon donald trump as a deep factor, but surely this goes much deeper than any individual, including mr trump. because what we are dealing with, surely, is the issue of human nature. we face a pandemic which, to

most of us, unless we live in wuhan, for example, has come in from outside. the inclination is to shut borders, to look for self protection, to blame others for what is happening to us. all of those are instincts which do lead quite naturally and instinctively to isolation, to a focus on self interest rather than cooperation and collaboration and trust. i think we should separate quarantine and blocking borders and stopping flights from actually blaming and hating foreigners. it doesn't have to go together. the simple fact that iam not to go together. the simple fact that i am not meeting somebody or cutting physical relations with somebody does not mean i stop cooperating or that i start blaming that person. i am now self isolating in my house. i haven't met my sisters or my mother for more than a month. it doesn't mean that i blame them or that i stop cooperating with them. even in

order, if you look at the international system, even in order to isolate effectively, you actually need to co—operate, first and foremost and sharing information. information is the vital fuel for everything that we do on the national level, on the local level, and information in this pandemic depends —— demands international cooperation, not a blame game of who is responsible and who is to blame for this epidemic. information about the virus, about the disease, even about the lockdown measures. now governments all across the world are experimenting with somewhat different policies. just one more thought about leadership. this, in a way, is an authoritarian moment, is it not? because, again, around the world, populations, public clinic, are looking for massive reassurance their leaders, they want strong

leaders, they want leaders they believe will protect them. and it is that's not why authoritarian strains of governance appear to be pretty effective right now? —— it that not why?. there are some governments more effective than others, but i don't think the dividing line passes between democracies and authoritarian regimes. you do see some democratic governments dealing with this quite effectively, whether it is in east asia, like south korea and taiwan, whether it is new zealand or germany or greece. so i do not think it is a question of only authoritarian systems. you are right, of course, that in a time of emergency when people are afraid for theirjobs and their futures and theirjobs and their futures and their very lives, there is a in humans to wish for some saviour, for some strong man, and it is almost a lwa ys some strong man, and it is almost always a man, that will save us and knows everything and will protect us. “— knows everything and will protect us. —— a built—in tendency. but this

is very dangerous. i don't think the historical indicates dictatorships are always better than democracies in dealing with these kinds of situations. yes, dictatorships have one big advantage, which is that they can act faster, because the dictator doesn't need to consult anybody. he just makes up his dictator doesn't need to consult anybody. hejust makes up his mind and says, ok, do that. and that is and says, ok, do that. and that is an advantage, certainly, but it is also a huge disadvantage. because if the dictator makes the wrong decision, for whatever reason, it is usually much harder to admit a mistake and to try some other course of action. ifi mistake and to try some other course of action. if i may interrupt for just a second, you are sitting and talking to me from israel. there, we have a democracy led by a veteran prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, which in the course of a response to this emergency, has basically curbed parliamentary settings, has passed legislation which increases the

powers of the executive, where we 110w powers of the executive, where we now know that surveillance powers are being employed by the internal security agency without any parliamentary approval. what we have isa parliamentary approval. what we have is a democracy, and it is notjust in israel, but we see others also, where the executive power, with no actual accountability, is being vastly expanded. and i think this is very dangerous. with what is happening in israel, at the moment when it seemed that this prime minister, which at the time was just a standard prime minister, he did not win the election, there was an election and he didn't win it, he had a minority in the parliament, and he tried to use this emergency to basically shut down parliament and ruled by emergency degrees, not as an elected government, this is something very different, from say the german government issuing emergency degrees. the german government has been elected by the

people. in israel, at the time, a couple of weeks ago, you had a parliament elected by the people and a prime minister not elected by the people, and the prime minister tried to shut down the parliament and i personally, at the moment, an announcement, at least in my view, this is an attempted coup. an attempt to overturn the democratic system. fortunately this was averted, parliament was reopened, and some measure of democratic balance was restored. so, yes, there is this danger. and what i tried to say earlier was that people who think that we should actually do these things, because dictatorships work better in emergencies, this is wrong. because if a dictator makes a wrong. because if a dictator makes a wrong decision, and they often make wrong decision, and they often make wrong decisions, i mean, no system is perfect. if you build a government system based on the assumption that it will never make a mistake, this is a recipe for disaster. the big advantage of

democracies is that you have different voices and different centres of power, so if one voice, if one centre of power makes the wrong decision, it is easier to notice it and to rectify it. and this is why in the long run, even in such emergencies, i think that democracies perform better than dictatorships. let us go deeper into that question of surveillance, because it has been raised again by covid—19. there are governments, both authoritarian and genuinely democratic, who are now united in a conviction that they need a much greater level of surveillance of their populations. now, at the moment it is about public health, but it could be about other things in the future. what they want, in your phrase, is to get under the skin of the population so that they are surveilling them in the most profound ways, from body temperature to all sorts of other physical data,

which automatically is going to be recorded, everything, from their movements to their breath is going to be recorded. is that, in your view, taking the historical perspective, a power that we should write now be happy to invest in our governments? —— right now. write now be happy to invest in our governments? —— right nowlj write now be happy to invest in our governments? -- right now. i am not against surveillance per se. i think it is an important technological tool which can help humanity fight against this at the adamic and against this at the adamic and against future epidemics. —— this epidemic and against future epidemics. we need to use it responsibly and carefully so that we do not end up losing ourfreedoms in order to get protection from epidemics. there is a huge danger in the rise of totalitarian regimes worse than anything we have seen before. in the 20th century you had a totalitarian regime that monitored what people were doing, but they couldn't go under the skin and

monitor what people were actually feeling and thinking. this was absolutely impossible. they didn't have the technology or the computing power to analyse all the data. now, for the first time in history, it is becoming feasible to monitor everybody all the time and notjust what we do, but even what we feel. you know, we have been hearing for many years about the rise of this surveillance, but most people still focus on what you can call over the skin surveillance, what you do, not what happens inside your body. like, we already know that corporations and governments can know that you are currently watching this show. and if you watch bbc hardtalk they can deduce from that all kinds of things about your political views, about your artistic taste, even about your artistic taste, even about your artistic taste, even about your personality. but this is still limited, they don't yet know

what you are actually feeling as you are watching us. do you think that i'm talking nonsense? do you think that i am correct, and you are becoming very afraid? are you bored, and you are looking for the remote control to switch to another channel? they don't know that. but once you have under the skin surveillance, you can know that, because emotions and feelings are biological phenomena just like fever. the same technology, if you wear a bracelet that constantly monitors your biometric data, it can know if you have fever, but it can also know if you are angry, or if you arejoyful or if also know if you are angry, or if you are joyful or if you are bored. if we give up our right to privacy when it comes to our health, we are

going to in the end give up our privacy when it comes to our thoughts and feelings as well? because they are on the same physiological spectrum to a certain extent. not necessarily. idon't believe in technological determinism. i think it is very dangerous to believe that technology, once you can do something, it will be done. it doesn't work like this. in the 20th century, people used the same technology to build communistic tater ships and fascist regimes and liberal democracies. they all used trains, electricity and radio, but in different ways. so this new surveillance technology that can go under the skin, it can do good things, like improve our healthcare, and we can keep it focused on that and we can keep it focused on that and prevent its abuse. it can be prevented. first of all, if you establish and use —— a new

surveillance system that monitors people positive medical conditions, it should be an independent agency. don't give it to the secret police, like they did in israel and like they did in several other places. this is not the business of the police. i think the people around the world, they would be fascinated if we make this quite personal, because in the past you have written and reflected on the degree to which in your own life when you were young, a teenager, you didn't for a long time acknowledge that you were 93v- long time acknowledge that you were gay. i think is that as a teenager of 14, there were signals that you are perhaps sending to the world that you were gay, but you didn't even acknowledge it yourself until you were about 21. you are basically more interested in pictures of men than women but you didn't really wa nt to than women but you didn't really want to know and you didn't discuss it with yourself. in a sense, these days, had you been looking at a computer and had your feelings and your... literally your key to have been recorded, in a sense, social

media platforms, the data collection services, would have known knew better than you knew yourself. and i just wonder philosophically whether thatis just wonder philosophically whether that is a good place that we are taking our species or a very bad place? it is a new place. again, it can do good things and it can do bad things. it is like a knife. a knife, you can use it to kill somebody, you can use it to save somebody‘s life if you are a surgeon in hospital, and you can use it to cup salad. the knife doesn't care. now we have this unprecedented technology to get to know people better than they know themselves. this can be very helpful to them, not only in healthcare, but in many other cases. just think about now that there is all this panic in the stock market. and you see the news, the stock market is down 8% this morning, and you panic, and you immediately pick up the

phone to sell your entire portfolio. just imagine that you haven't ai sidekick may be on your smoke —— smart phone, which is monitoring the signals coming from within your body, your brain, and recognising that you are now in panic mode. this isa that you are now in panic mode. this is a biological phenomena, very easy to spot that, and the spark phone tells you, wait a minute, we know from so much research this is not the time to make big financial decisions when you are in panic mode. this is a kind of system that serves your interests. it collect data about what is happening in your body, not for the benefit of some corporation or government, but to serve you. and if it really works well, it can help you make much better decisions in life about your financial situation, about what to study, about whom to date. financial situation, about what to study, about whom to datem financial situation, about what to study, about whom to date. it is a fascinating glimpse into a positive view of a brave new world. but i am

also very aware that right now thanks to the covid—19 pandemic, also see many people, including leaders of the world, from trouble to bolsonaro to sell been in italy, many others too, who are peddling false information, fake news about different elements of this pandemic. science, which you havejust described, offering us the most amazing potential allergies for the future, right now is being produced. it is misinforming... we are being misinformed about the facts. how dangerous is that? it is extremely dangerous is that? it is extremely dangerous because especially in this disaster, in this crisis, science is oui’ disaster, in this crisis, science is our bedrock. if we can't trust the basics and scientific fact, for instance, about what this disease is, then we have no idea what to do. orwe do is, then we have no idea what to do. or we do counter—productive things. i think the good signals that we do see around us is that in this crisis, even many people and

politicians, which previously disregarded science, are turning to it as the ultimate authority, as the most trustworthy authority. in israel, for example, they closed down all the synagogues. in iran, they shut down the mosques. churches all over the world are telling people stay away from church because even the religious authorities are trusting what the scientists are saying when the scientists tell them, look, these places of worship should be closed down because they could spread infection. of course there is still a lot of fake news out there, a lot of conspiracy theories out there, and we are paying the price for developments in the last two years when irresponsible politicians have undermined the public trust in the science and in reliable media. but i think it is not too late. just a

final quick one, we're almost out of time. you have given us this trajectory, this for the development of homo sapiens, and you have looked far into the future. this covid—19 crisis in which you call the biggest crisis in which you call the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, as it to you represent in the end little more than a you represent in the end little more thana bump you represent in the end little more than a bump in the road, or is it something more profound than that? for me, as a historian, it is really very interesting. this moment right now. i think that in our lifetime, if you think in terms of a couple of decades, it will be big. not because of the epidemic itself, but even more so because of the economic and political consequences. but in the long sweep of history, thousands of yea rs, long sweep of history, thousands of years, no, idon't long sweep of history, thousands of years, no, i don't think it will be one of the big events of history. it is, it could be a watershed event in several ways, like we discussed earlier, with surveillance. people

could look back in 100 years and identify the coronavirus epidemic as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially surveillance took over, especially surveillance under the skin, which i think is maybe the most important development of the 21st century, is this ability to hack human beings, to go under the skin, collect biometric data, analyse it and understand people better than they understand people better than they understand themselves. this, i believe, is maybe the most important event of the 21st century. the moment when a system out there knows me better than i know myself, has never been like this before. with that fascinating thought looking into the future, i really do appreciate you being on hardtalk and i thank you very much forjoining me. thank you very much indeed. thank you. it has been a pleasure.

hello. april thus far, for the most part, has been marked by dry, warm and sunny days, but the forthcoming week brings something completely different as we close out the month. significant spells of rain — it will, generally speaking, feel a wee bit cooler too. but at least the pollen levels are going to be reduced from the sort of levels we've seen of late. eventually, we will be looking towards the atlantic for our weather, but in the short term, it is coming at us from the near continent and across the channel. certainly, as we start the new day on tuesday, there will already be cloud and rain across the southern counties of england and wales, relatively mild here underneath clearer skies across the north—east of scotland,

maybe a touch of frost with temperatures below zero. but dry and bright to start with across the northern half of the british isles, showers developing across scotland, northern ireland and the north of england. but further south, notice how dark some of those blues are. it will be quite a wet day and the temperature suffering as a consequence, 8, 9 or 10 underneath all that rain. and it will be really quite wet — 10,15, possibly 20mm of rain, which eventually will drag its way away from the eastern side of the british isles. but come wednesday, we will be looking towards the atlantic to see another belt of rain after a dry enough to start, the rain eventually moving through the south—west of england, wales, into northern ireland, on towards the midlands to the south—east of england. in fact, many areas seeing rain before the day is out except perhaps the central and northern parts of scotland, maybe a parting shower here, but essentially it is much drier. come thursday, another pulse of rain will be working its way

in on the southern flank of that low. the position of the low itself open to a little bit of interpretation just at the moment, but if it comes a little bit further north, there's some really quite strong winds will push in across southern parts of both england and wales and down towards the channel islands. another fairly unsettled day for england and wales. for scotland and northern ireland, it's much drier with some sunshine until later on, where we push the rain into the northern isles. by friday, that low pressure is moved away, but again, there is the chance of some pretty hefty showers coming into northern ireland, wales, the south—wst of england, some rain further north in scotland and perhaps something a little bit drier through central and eastern areas with the temperatures just trying to recover. by next weekend, it will stay showering and pretty cool too.

this is bbc news. i'm sally bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. president trump uses his first coronavirus news conference since friday to accuse china of failing to stop the spread of the illness. a minute's silence will be held this morning to honour uk health workers who've died from coronavirus. the prime minister will be among those taking part. italy's prime minister prepares to ease the country's lockdown — we'll look at what that might mean for one of europe's worst—affected countries. new zealand contains the spread of covid—19 and allows businesses and schools to reopen — it says it will look at lifting other rules in two weeks time. and we have a special report on what people will contribute as museums call for your memories