trump corporate law joining us as we try to find don't want to. have. a lot of welcome to the party coming together and by staying up are these now a populist slogan in dealing with the corona virus outbreak including among policymakers who just a few weeks ago score untrammeled bounce and social distancing why so much of the

initial advisement how to handle call that 19 been trained on its chads well to discuss that i'm now i'm joined by stephen home and director of the global strategy law and professor of global health law and political science at york university professor hultman thank you very much for joining us from what i understand to be the privacy of your home that's right i mean so quarantine myself after the canadian government asked anyone returning to canada within the last 14 days to remain in their homes for the remainder of that 14 day period and the you told me before the recording that it's your 12th day in south quarantine and you seem to be doing pretty well yes yes i'm very lucky i have i can apartments i have family and friends who have been able to help and but it. take its toll in the sense that i'm used to being out and about so going to work and this is a new experience for. but one that i recognize how lucky i am given i have friends

and family and supports that i know that from the very beginning of this al baker you've been. calling against overreaction and save your trip travel restrictions and then many policymakers including canada's health minister seem to share that view only a week ago but since then canada has introduced restrictions on foreign travel as well what do you think accounts for such a dramatic change in policy well this outbreak is clearly a serious threat that requires a serious response and so i think right now what we're seeing is governments around the world trying to figure out just what's the best way to respond to a prick like this one i think there's so much we still don't know but the good news is we're learning more and more every day and the hope is that governments responses can be informed with the best available evidence because that's how we're going to get through this and in the best way now we know from science that of past

outbreaks that travel back and don't typically work and the reason for that is because many people really want to travel they find a way of doing so and if people are going to travel we really want them to use official channels because then if they do you can thank ted we can quickly identify them and identify everyone they've come into close contact with in order to ask them to go into quarantine can't do that if people are traveling through unofficial channels now that they said even governments that at 1st were calling against travel bans we are now starting to see some start to invoke that and i think the reason for that is we're recognizing that this outbreak is just so different than past outbreaks correct me from i'm wrong but the last these past week has produced a very rapid increase in the number of infections in canada as well as a steep increase in the number of fatalities and. i wonder if this initial has

a taste in canada to ensure g.'s a travel ban had anything to do with the more sort of pro liberal leaning of the canadian government because it's no secret that the canadians like to think of themselves as the champions of liberal values freedom of movement the sydney want of those values don't you think that these initial has a taishan resulted in in an increase in fatalities had to do with ideological reasons more than if you do male logical reasons well just to clarify in canada right now we have 800 cases and there's been 12 deaths so we're actually quite lucky in the sense that where earlier on in the outbreak and we're going to be able to look to how other countries have responded in order to learn what to do and what not to do i think that yeah i mean the canadian government's very clear that. it's proud of usually having open borders begin accepting place for people

all around the world that's part of the canadian identity actually right of one of the baltic culturalism and so i'm sure that that value definitely had a role in trying to keep canada's borders open as long as possible as well it's clear that under the international health regulations which is the global treaty that governs how 195 countries i respect are supposed to respond tell breaks it's clear under that treaty that countries are not supposed to impose travel bans at this time because it's not based on science and it's not based on a recommendation from the world health organization i think all of that played into a decision but ultimately canada like every country around the world is just trying to do the best for its citizens as as they can well professor holden the reason i'm asking about this is because when your us neighbors introduced similar restrictions the were widely criticised in the county. and process as racist always in

a full big but now it seems that count of the is fully in sync with the american strategy isn't a tacit recognition that whatever one thinks of president trump politically or morally that the american strategy was still more accurate. batter from a logical standpoint. you know i wouldn't say that you know the american response i mean well if you look to mess to clean it's quite a mess and terms of there not having diagnostic testing capacity and quite a not just coordinated public health system as one might expect such a wealthy country but then if you look internationally actually it was one of the 1st countries in the world to impose a travel ban against people coming from china that was unhelpful for the public health response along with the dozens of other countries that similarly instituted that kind of travel restriction because it makes it more difficult to coordinate

internationally get medical supplies where they need such so in the united states that the travel restrictions have and other countries have been very much focused on not allowing people from particular areas to come to the united states. rather taken the opposite approach in that it's instead of targeting particular countries which would in his or punish those countries in a sense canada has put a border around itself from professor hall to be told here is that going into canada is blessed by its geography and it only has a border with one country and it's far easier to control that. let's say if you have like russia you know a border with several dozen countries and. you tend to see the ban on chinese travelers as in a full big but i think russia was also one of the countries that introduced limitations against chinese travelers and it actually paid all of because we don't have to file fatalities like in canada and the chinese seem to take no offense i

mean they they introduce those a trial restrictions themselves should be really conceded that in terms of ideology as an aside there's value judgment words you know xenophobia graces when in fact we are all dealing with the outbreak of a pretty unusual donica nobody really. how to deal with that well might not be as ana phobic if those travel bans were motivated on the basis. of race or difference it's just that sometimes those travel bans have been accompanied with statements from political leaders that have a racial tinge so for example there's many countries that don't wouldn't allow people to come in if they have citizenship one country but if they're not of that citizenship then they are allowed in so there is this kind of exceptions that don't really make sense sometimes reveal motives for things that are aren't very savory

in the context of travel bans even if they aren't xenophobic. they were still illegal under the international health regulations and i think that's enough itself well let me seize this moment to ask you specifically about those regulations and i know that a couple of weeks ago you signed an open letter published in the journal lancet calling against the travel ban you argued that it's not only excessive but it may violate international law and one of the conditions on which traveled bans could be introduced is that it's done in accordance with science and yes i think you would agree with me that it's going to take months if not years to get a definitive signs on this particular corona virus as well as many others that may follow do you think these kind of international legislation this kind of regulations out up today given the with what we're dealing right now this emergence

of a new sort of virus of a new family of viruses that's seem to be spreading faster than before and seem to carry higher fatalities down before well you're certainly right that we won't ultimately know whether things where in the right way at the right time. after this outbreak is over but we have to get outbreak is the data that we see on the ground and the best available research evidence that's available to us at that time and that is what the international health regulations require governments to make decisions on especially if those decisions are going to have consequences for other countries now i think what we're starting to recognize is that this outbreak does look different and i think though it's not only the nature of the virus because in fact this virus is highly predictable right and indeed it's not even as bad as some of the scenarios right it's not it doesn't it doesn't spread as fast as easels and

it doesn't kill as many people as mers so i mean it could be worse that being said what is clear is the way that governments around the world are reacting is different than what was expected or at least different than what we've seen in the past and as a result i think many governments are taking a renewed look at some of these measures like travel bans that maybe wouldn't have worked or didn't work in previous outbreaks maybe they'll have some effect today although many people like myself who study these things are still skeptical about that present hold on the you just said that it's not that the outbreak is so much different but the governments are reacting in a different way and i do want to ask you specifically about that but on the on the 1st point is that really the case because one can argue that the this is the kind of damage that on the one hand you know it could you know it is have been warning about for quite some time you know this cross infection between

animals and humans but there seems to be more speed more intensity to hostile as this is spreading and wouldn't it be criminal on the governments to see than wait for definitive signs to pop up and by. you know by implication expose that most vulnerable groups to these. wildfire speed epidemics will certainly have governments weren't doing anything and yes that would be a great concern to all of us. i think that what we are saying i'm certainly seeing it in my country and canada we're seeing it now and states and you're out elsewhere many governments taking this extremely seriously for example in my country our government has asked everybody to stay at home except for going out for essential goods like any food and medicine in order to flatten the epidemic curve and make sure that people don't all get sick at the same time so there's

a pretty robust action happening closing of schools canceling a big gatherings and that's not just in canada where i am but in many countries around the world i think that when we look at travel patterns that kind of action though. might not work and in fact when we look at previous outbreaks when we have had some travel restrictions on travel bans they haven't really worked and so in that respect i think yes ag governments need to do everything they can but we also want to make sure that what they do is effective because if they do overreact and take actions that are not effective not only might the public start to lose trust in those governments but also they might actually cause more harm and they should benefit ok well professor holden we have to take a very short break right now but we'll be back in just a few moments. as

the democrats gear up to officially start their 2020 presidential primary that is spinning to a says donald trump's performance and. it's a report card of sorts where is he kept his promises where has he come up short will any of this really matter in november. that dark industry comes to life in los angeles every night. dozens of women sells their bodies on the streets many of them under-age. los angeles police reveal a taste of their daily challenge no if you're going to exploit for a child here in los angeles oh they were going to come out you would see officers going undercover as 6 workers and customers to fight the early 6 trades.

welcome back to worlds apart but steven hoffman director of the global strategy lab and professor of global health law and political science at york university professor holden just before the break we were talking about badgers that the governments can take and your point was that still travel bans perhaps a little bit on the excessive side and yet if we look at these 2 scenarios that the countries have taken so far in dealing with this epidemic the agency area south korea and china sonera you know the containment and the gradual decrease in the number of new cases and the european want where the freedom of movement was not restricted m.p.'s in which ultimately led to over i think 5000 fatalities at this point of time in europe it seems that dead you know the more excessive from your

point of view or project called may ultimately save lives well i think to just to clarify i think the thing that has been saving lives is that what we call social distancing so that's all the measures taken within countries to encourage people to maintain. physical distance to make sure that we minimize the opportunity for the virus to spread from one person to another that works and there's lots of science that shows that quarantine when it's done in a precise way among people who are infected or those who come into contact with them that works we know that for example closing larger gatherings closing schools can press slow down the spread of a virus like this one so those are measures quite bold measures that do work it's really what this previous science has been more questioning is the travel and the tweener countries and so that's something that we've seen from the very beginning

at this outbreak and other countries and then more to at taking those on as time passes but you know i mean when i think about it canadians from my experience are far more conscientious than let's say the russians you know you can tell you know yourself currington right now i'm going around the town i'm still maintaining my regular routine and you know going out for a jog and a lot of as a still kind of. making jokes about this whole thing i mean when you deal with people of different cultures can you really count on them exercising the same kind of self-discipline that you expect perhaps from your own citizens isn't the other way of protecting them against you know different perceptions of the cessna and responsibility. i think you're a 100 percent right that each country needs to figure out the best way that it has to respond and that response will look different in every country given for example

either a different culture or a different legal system but i think when once a country has community transmission of this virus then really the weather additional infectious people come into that country that all that determines it's not really how many more cases there are in the country but how fast it spreads so in that respect once there are cases in russia as there are now there are going to be more cases and russians definitely need to get ready for that and ideally take any measures that the government of public health authorities call for quite seriously in trying to limit the spread of this outbreak we were talking about international regulation before the may promise of though that regulation is that it's easier to confront any sort of pandemic collectively viruses as i heard you say don't have cast birds and yet what we have seen so far in this initial response to call that 9000 is that every man or every country is essentially for itself i

mean sure there were some collaboration through the world health organization but ultimately it was all down to you and national response aren't we naive. to believe that collective considerations. i'm going to be prioritized in a times of stress like we are seeing right now but i hope we're not naive in the sense that when you look at the range of challenges that face our world and increasing number if not most of the really big ones require collective action across countries so if in something like this we can't work together then what about all the other issues that threaten human existence right climate change. weapons. biodiversity there's so many issues where we need to work together but i think you're right in the sense that in this outbreak really highlights that our system for global governance is weak and that not only is it international health

regulations which dozens of countries are currently violating but it's just the broader system in which we tackle these challenges and i think this highlights we need to do you better in the future i mean for one thing certainly when so many countries are breaking international health regulations it makes sense to revisit that instruments after this outbreak is over but also our system more broadly for how we govern those challenges that transcend national borders i think one particular example here to consider is the european union which likes to present itself not only as a called an economic space but as a as a community values and want to be saw. in these 1st few weeks is essentially you know italy and spain being left to the own devices in germany the champion of european integration suspending food limiting the axe for the medical supplies to the media neighbors. i know that you are not only a professor all 5 public houses but also of political science do you think the

european union has lived up to its lofty aspirations in these 1st response to a call that 19. i think an outbreak on the scale of covert 19 is challenging all kinds of cooperative arrangements that we have developed over time and have depended upon i think this these kinds of challenges shocks to the system give us the opportunity to reflect on what actually has been working but also what needs to be strengthened afterwards because i think we have seen i think some really fantastic cooperation in europe but also we're seeing some challenges in the union where we're not seeing necessarily the level of cooperation that we might have expected but i think that is a learning point for the future i think europe has provided us with few ways of dealing with the philosophical approaches to this crisis one is you try to protect

the older vulnerable groups and save as many people as possible that would be represented by italy spain or even germany and another one is the approach that talks about the need for the population to develop some sort of immunity and if there are some people who die so be it i mean the the u.k. i thing is pretty much articulating that kind of approach and the latter 1 may seem very cruel it may seem very darwinian but i think one can also make a case that it's far more ecological because if you know all the 7600000000 people on the planet for you to leave to 80 or 90 years old there would be no one left on this planet but humans and the question i want to ask you is if you think we have come to a point when we need to discuss the affleck's of lung damage ha long isn't is long enough for human life to continue. questions are definitely have some of the many

difficult questions that have pandemic late this raises i think in the u.k. context they were initially pursuing a path. that makes scientific sense in a way right to try to achieve herd immunity and ideally before many older people are infected because it's really this virus is has really age dependent consequences but i think the thing that the u.k. for god is that people don't find that an acceptable approach and when people don't find it acceptable pro-choice they demand their government to react differently and so in that respect what we see is that any response for an outbreak not only needs to be something that's going to effect if we contain the outbreak of a virus but also contain the outbreak of fear misinformation and stigma that goes with it that's not something that the u.k. initially accounted for but it is something they're now accounting for as they

switch to the strategy that other countries have been pursuing now this is a very difficult question for me personally but i think we all need to ponder it very. with a lot of attention because when it comes to your own parents or grandparents we all want them or ourselves to leave as long as possible but on the other hand we do have to recognize that the the resources of this planet limited and one of the reasons we are seeing seeing such a rise in especially zoonotic pandemics those ones that are chance for it from animals to humans is because humanity keeps encroaching on the earth's last remaining wildlife reserves if we continue doing that if we as humans continue taking more and more space at the expense of other species isn't it inevitable that after called in $1000.00 we will have to deal with another pandemic off of a similar story that maybe just ask contagious and perhaps even while more

definitely where you're actually raising tough questions that we need to be thinking about but i think one thing i can agree on is that we are going. i face future pandemics i mean this this one that we see now or it's obviously it's a severe one that's requires quite an extraordinary response but the next one might be worse and the next one is inevitable which really highlights that we need to change some of the underlying structures that lead to these kinds of outbreaks in the 1st place and it also means we need to be investing now and between pandemics in public health infrastructure as well as in science i think that's when one really important note in this outbreak is how important it is to have a robust scientific response because if we're responding to this outbreak with things that we only knew at the very beginning of it we wouldn't be able to learn and adapt our approach over time we wouldn't have the countermeasures or hopefully

a vaccine that will come hopefully someday hopefully someday soon and so that really highlights though that it's too late during an outbreak to be starting to make those investments in public health and science we need to do it and we need to scale that up that's one of the key lessons i think we've learned from this epic which we need to apply afterwards now one thing you didn't mention is the structure of our economy because one can easily argue the call that 19 is essentially a disease of extreme globalization you know this chinese province where the infection originated it is a highly industrialized problem instead that the level of arbonne ization has it increased dramatically in response to global demand for goods do you think we will have we as human and you will have to think about the way. economic system is structured so that me do not take more from earth and we really need because you

mentioned that. you know the the elderly are one of the most vulnerable groups but another one the rebel group of people with metabolic diseases who perhaps have taken more resources no food the last activity done perhaps they needed who allowed the bodies to be treated in a way that is perhaps not the healthiest way to treat yourself so i want to give them larger perhaps philosophical issues to consider when dealing with this outbreak globalization has given lots of opportunities but also it's increasing in risks like that of a pandemic in the sense that people travel and trade more than ever before and as a result it just takes hours literally for a virus to go from one country to the other side of the world and so in that respect yeah globalization means that we need to take more seriously certain risks that come with the many opportunities it poses i think the other thing in terms of our economic systems around the world i think it's clear that this outbreak shows

that steep inequality kills and by that what i mean is it's always in times like this where it really highlights that it's the least well off in a society that have it the worst when these sorts of events happen and so the deep inequality that we've allowed to fester in every part of the world is a structural weakness of every country and of the world as a whole and so that's something we definitely need to tackle the best way of doing that i would leave it to other experts remarks or to some that say well thank you very much for being with us today and professor holden and stay safe thank you thanks for having me and thank you for watching i hope to see you again next sunday on worlds apart.

you know what i mean maybe out there so i don't think about it at all many grown men not new dorp or. i kind of but i wonder. if they now i think it's higher than our. members of the african mafias conway's them safe and quick passage to europe but once they. leave they are in sleeves they count speech util. will not some of them may be

a mom and i couldn't you know if this unit can get it out in. the cheek when. they sold the. lead it's all gone court of the united. because the persona that a kid even thought all. go. a little bit messed up biology and made somewhere over the complete i'm not sure this is such a great thing you know i'm sure you look better now than when you have. well it's nice of you to say so but i went down when i was 25 and so for.