Features

Of lives and livelihoods

Published

5 years ago

2021/05/21

by Usvatte-aratchi

We seem to face a complicated set of problems in handling the epidemic Covid-19 in our country. The infection rate is well above 1. The number identified to have been infected during the last few days has been counting up to 2,000. That is alarmingly high. Consequent upon the rapid rise in infections, there are four tightening bottlenecks: there is an emerging scarcity of hospital beds; the number of acute-care-beds is well short of probable requirements; healthcare personnel are exhausted and short in supply; and the supply and distribution of clinical oxygen may dangerously fall well short of the number of patients distributed over the island that need such care. That is when the capacity of the system will be tested and the current death rate of those being infected will rise rapidly from the present 0.65 per hundred of the infected. The conversion of existing hospitals to accommodate corona patients and the construction of field hospitals may solve the first problem. It is well to remember that the conversion of existing hospitals to accommodate corona patients will be at the expense of beds for non-corona-virus patients.

The scarcity of acute care beds can be very dangerous and there is no alternative to emergency purchase of equipment, when other countries themselves may find it difficult to release such equipment. As with hospital beds, the diversion of health care personnel to treat corona patients will be at cost to other patients. Eventually, when other morbidities are counted, departures from the normal will tell its own tale. Health care personnel from physicians to those that disinfect premises have worked with tremendous dedication and high efficiency. The availability of such persons may be the most strictly binding constraint to saving lives. We have been re-assured that the two factories that produce clinical oxygen have capacity to increase production fast enough to avoid shortages. Distribution to hospitals, as their locations spread wide, may pose problems. All these exigencies arose because we failed to stem the tide of invading infections. We have had ample time to prevent the emergence of these exigencies. Incompetence and complacency among policy makers seem to have conspired to put the population at severe risks and to their unfortunate consequences. Our government did well in early 2020 to lockdown the country, close boundaries and keep the invasion at bay. That may have engendered a sense of undue complacency.

The corona-19 infection is far more widespread than the Spanish flu that ravaged most parts of the world 1919-1920. Although the numbers are not beyond dispute, the best judgement is that some 3.5 percent of those infected died in that epidemic. That wider spread of the epidemic in 2020-21 is explained by the increased mobility of people and goods now compared to that which prevailed 100 years ago. With advances in medical care, the fast discovery of effective vaccines and more effective organization, we should do much better this time round. With nearly 18 months from the beginning of the epidemic in China, there was a wealth of experience that we, in this country, could have learned from. The first experience in fighting the epidemic was in Wuhan, a city of about 11 million people in Hubei Province with some 60 million people.

The Chinese authorities locked down the city completely for more than six weeks. The lockdown was strict with no political ignoramuses countermanding the restrictions imposed by the officials, supported, of course, by CCP. Gates to some apartment buildings were barred from outside with strips of steel. When the epidemic appeared further east, the same prescription was administered. China was the first to be infected and the first to see its back, the latter a truly remarkable achievement with the crowded eastern seaboard. These methods may not be replicable in other societies but variants were applied in other parts of the world. Vietnam closed its long border with China very early. It closed its airs pace for flights from southern China. It locked down the country effectively. The government spoke to the people frequently. Vietnam has had for some decades a commendable public health system (see its infant mortality and maternal mortality figures for the 1980s). New Zealand and Australia stand out as success stories. New Zealand closed its air space to those outside and imposed a lockdown inside the country. Australia down communities, even large cities like Melbourne, as the threat of widespread infection appeared. Australia had gone so far as to keep out their own citizens, when they wished to return from a dangerously infected land.

There is both thought about the policy and determination in its execution. Now neither New Zealand nor Australia runs the risk of runaway infection. Among other countries, some expected the epidemic to run out if steam when it had infected a large enough number in the population (herd immunity). Among those were Sweden, US with Donald Trump as president, and Brazil with seemingly idiosyncratic Jair Bolsonaro as president. Sweden soon realized the implausibility of its expectation and they still suffer very high infection rates. US had to await the arrival of Joseph Biden as president, who took the advice of scientists and physicians, to galvanise a program of vigorous vaccination and has now 200 million persons fully or partially vaccinated. Britain, after a period of strict lockdown has used its excellent NHS to vaccinate about 67% of its population. The outstanding success is that small country Israel, which is so free of the virus now, that they shake hands casually.

The information below from Johns Hopkins (copied from The Economist) shows you success in vaccination in several countries up to May 6, 2021 . The small population of Bhutan (Bho tan, land’s end), up in the tail end of Himalayas, as well as atolls Maldives have wisely vaccinated their populations. Maldives is especially instructive to us because of the importance of tourism in its economy. In contrast, the massive population of India has been reeling under the weight of the irresistible spread of the infection. The attitude of the government with a population not alive to the true nature of the infection has left that population helpless against the onslaught. Even the rich states of Gujerat and Maharashtra have been hotbeds of infection.

The unregulated celebration of Kumbh mela where millions of devotees assemble in the small town Hardwar for several days provided the ideal fertile ground where SARS–Cov-2 thrived. The enthusiasm of both Trinamool and BJP to win the election in Bengal caused the gathering of large crowds in various parts of that densely populated state. The spread of the infection in Bengal is yet to be seen. These lackadaisical attitudes of the BJP government have made India one of the most severely infected countries in the world.

We have to take account of inadequate public health in the country, despite the first rate AIIMS hospitals in cities. India has some of the largest vaccine producing facilities in Maharashtra. Yet, there has been no plan for vigorous vaccination of the population, formidable as that task will be. In Sri Lanka no more than 5% of the population has been vaccinated to date.

(see the image)

Sri Lanka has had excellent public health services for decades. The elimination of childhood diseases and infectious disease bear witness to their excellence. Derivative evidence is the low infant mortality rate, the low maternal mortality rate and the consequent high average expectation of life at birth.

The public health services have been constructed with the commitment of wise and farseeing government leaders who provided the physical facilities and the dedication and commitment of physicians and support staff, on wages unattractive in most countries. In this compact land, communications are very good by most standards, now vastly improved with highspeed motorways. To an impartial observer there are long standing reasons why the covid epidemic should not take hold here. But alas, it has.

It has because the government opened airports and new mutations of SARS-CoV-2 marched in the company of visa holders. The new mutations evidently transfer themselves from one person to another, faster than the ones that prevailed locally. The government decided that in the race between lives and livelihoods that livelihoods are what mattered more than lives. The argument, which runs as follows, is not without merit. Covid-2019 kills. But so does the scarcity of livelihoods. It is more important to maintain livelihoods than prevent infections. Therefore, do not lockdown the country but lockdown localities selectively; the selection depending on the incidence of infections in the locality. By the time a locality is locked down, it has high infection; the community has been wounded and then it is locked down to lick its wounds, so to say. In the meanwhile, people from other parts of the country had been infected by people who now ae sequestrated. The three districts in the western province, for several days now, have contributed more than half the high number of infections in the country. Selective lock down of localities have not abated the rate of infection either in those districts or elsewhere. More intensive interaction among people in these districts contributes to the growth of infections. Consequently, it is more sensible to strictly lock down the country, as Wuhan and Hubei were locked down for nearly two months. More intense infection and high number of deaths compel people to lock themselves down. The evidence is in the cancellation of passenger trains by CGR and buses idling in depots for lack of passengers. In Colombo itself, roads are almost empty. There is no evidence anywhere that the denial of livelihoods consequent upon such lock down killed any large numbers. Nor is there evidence yet, that they contributed to stunting and wasting in children. Government must spend to maintain minimum standards of living during the lockdown. Yes, doing so will reduce the value of the rupee both internally and externally but that is the way that the population at large rather than those in low income groups alone bear the burden of the policies. That is also the way that the rampant ravage of the infection can be brought under control.

The respite gained by the lockdown must be used to vaccinate some 65%-70% of the population. The development of vaccines to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is a triumph of modern science, medical technology and the strength of pharmaceutical companies and other organisations. Governments which foresaw the use of vaccinations in controlling the infection contracted with providers to supply them with vaccinations. Some either did not foresee that need, could not find the resources to contract with suppliers or were pre-occupied with other concerns. We fall into the second category and pay a price, in both in lives and in livelihoods for our failure to procure vaccines. We have seen the effectiveness of vaccination in checking the spread of the infection in US, Britain and Israel and other countries. We have also seen the failure of US with Donald Trump, Brazil with Bolsonaro and India with Modi to vaccinate their people resulting large scale infection and the loss of lives. When the number of deaths rises to 7 million from the present 3.5 million, the world will have lost 1 per 1,000 of its population; a tremendous cost. Our government needs to sit back and re-consider its own policies. Silly heroic stands of ‘ I do not change my mind’ will do us all in.

From that point of view, the debate on the epidemic in Parliament on April 6, was a grave disappointment. Neither the Opposition nor the government gained any stature in the course of the debate. The Opposition did not present an analysis of the problems facing the country and propose alternative policies to solve them and their own preferred choice. The government did not articulate its policies and seek justification for them. A minister of government, who is also a professor of medicine, and who wound up the debate for the government, at the end of a combative response, issued a report card with a load of F’s to the Opposition. That debate in Parliament, as is usual, generated ‘a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours’. The public of this country deserve better.

All News Advertisement

Features

‘The devil is in the details’ in West Asian peace

Published

11 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Donald Trump at the current G7 summit in France. Evelyn Hockstein/Getty Image

It is obviously too early for an outpouring of joy over the seeming cessation of hostilities between the main antagonists in West Asia. While the prospect of there being a measure of calm in the region is being welcomed by considerable sections of the international community, what is ‘on the table’ currently is only a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran to give peace a chance. The hard part in the peace effort remains to be achieved.

In the Middle East of today we have one of the most complex conflicts to break out in modern international politics and the observer would be naive in the extreme to expect a facile and early closure to the tangle. Yet, for the sake of the world’s publics who have been hurting badly in the prolonged hostilities one could only hope that the US-Iran MoU that is expected to be signed by the sides on Friday would lead eventually to a substantive peace. The world’s thanks are due to Pakistan in this connection for its sustained support in the peace drive.

While the sides have agreed to a ceasing of hostilities in the most general terms and have reached accord on the facilitation of uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, for instance, the ‘devil will prove to be in the details’ in an envisaged comprehensive peace settlement. It is these details that would make or break peace if the negotiations go on in earnest.

Nevertheless, the details would need to be worked out consensually in a spirit of compromise with an eye to the greater good of the world community. Realpolitik or a narrow focus on solely the national interest among the protagonists, for example, would need to give way to a measure of humanity that would encompass within it a consideration of the overall well being of the world. In other words, it is statesmanship that would crucially matter.

The next few weeks would establish whether humanists are ‘asking for far too much’ when they broach the questions at issue in these terms. Yet it is essentially self interest and national security considerations of the first importance that drove the conflict from even prior to February this year and these questions would need to be taken up and resolved to the satisfaction of the US and Iran in the main if some headway is to be made towards a durable settlement.

The nuclear issue would prove to be the proverbial Gordian Knot. From a realistic viewpoint, Iran could not be expected to be without a potential nuclear deterrent in the face of perceived nuclear threats emanating for it from the West and Israel. In the short term, Iran would need to possess this deterrent to a measure, within a mutually agreed international legal framework maybe, until wide agreement is reached on the nuclear tangle. Specifically, Iran’s immediate threat perceptions with regard to her nuclear-powered rivals would need to be defused during initial negotiations.

Ideally it is a world free of nuclear weapons that must be aimed at but since this goal cannot be achieved in the near or medium terms, unfolding negotiations would need to ensure Iran’s absolute security in a world of powers that continue to swear by the nuclear deterrent, if it is to give up the suspected latter capability.

However, it is to the degree to which the present nuclear powers divest themselves of this capability that Iran could be put at ease on this score. Accordingly, it is nothing short of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world that could dissuade keenly security conscious states from developing nuclear weapons of their own with a mass destruction capability.

This is the number one dilemma the international community needs to grapple with going forward and it is to the extent to which it resolves it that a nuclear weapons free world could be envisaged. No doubt, an uphill challenge.

Compelling Israel to support the present negotiatory process constitutes another grueling challenge for the US. Currently the Iranian position essentially is that a Middle East peace is inseparable from a normalization of the security situation in Lebanon. That is, the present Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon must cease if a comprehensive peace is to be realized in West Asia.

However, Israel is showing no signs of drawing back from its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since the security of the Israeli state is being seen as threatened by the militant group. Co-opting Israel into the negotiatory effort therefore would turn out to be a matter of paramount concern for the US.

Moreover, elements in the rightist administration in Israel are seeing the current peace efforts as a ‘sell out’ to the enemies of Israel. They would have none of it. It is left to be seen how the US would be managing these virtual storm centres in the diplomatic process that could very well bring down the overall purported peace drive.

A recent pronouncement by US Vice President J.D. Vance points to yet another problem area in the US’ current peace overtures. He said that, ‘Regional peace and stability includes stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.’ He was obviously referring to the support extended by Iran to Hezbollah when he mentioned ‘terrorist organizations’ but he has given fresh life to the age-old conundrum of ‘Who is a terrorist?’ by these words.

To the Netanyahu government the Hezbollah and other militant organizations fighting Israel are ‘terrorists’ but from the viewpoint of the Iranian regime they are ‘freedom fighters’. This seemingly insurmountable definitional issue would not only stubbornly bedevil the peace effort but could even figure in bringing about its collapse, unless judiciously handled.

Thus, it’s the thorny details that need to be watched to keep the West Asian peace process afloat, once it gets going in earnest. There is no doubt that US President Trump would be receiving a considerable amount of support from the G7 in this historic peace undertaking and his personal appeals to the grouping currently meeting in France for continuous support are likely to elicit a positive response from it.

Likewise, Trump would need to appeal to also the BRICS countries if almost total global support is to be garnered for the peace drive in West Asia. BRICS’ solidarity with the US and the West is likely to carry considerable weight with Iran and other Eastern actors who are key to a sustained peace drive in the Middle East.

Features

Sri Lanka’s elephant paradox: Govt. counts tourism dollars while playing a dangerous numbers game: Expert

Published

11 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

At a time when Sri Lanka is enjoying a resurgence in wildlife tourism, with elephants remaining the undisputed stars of the country’s national parks and one of its most marketable natural assets, elephant conservationist Supun Lahiru Prakash has sounded a stark warning: the nation is in danger of losing the very species that helps attract millions of tourism dollars while sustaining some of the island’s most important ecosystems.

Supun says repeated claims by authorities that Sri Lanka’s elephant population is increasing, despite the absence of a final survey report and amid continuing elephant deaths, risk creating a misleading narrative that could undermine conservation efforts and encourage retaliation against elephants.

According to Supun, the issue is not merely about numbers. It is about political priorities, scientific credibility and the future of one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic species.

“Repeatedly claiming that the elephant population is increasing appears to be an attempt to hide the Government’s inability to manage the rising annual elephant death rate and the complications of human-elephant conflict,” Supun said.

For decades, the Sri Lankan elephant has been a symbol of the country’s rich natural heritage. It is the centrepiece of wildlife tourism, drawing visitors from across the globe to national parks such as Yala, Udawalawe, Minneriya, Kaudulla and Wilpattu. International wildlife documentaries, tourism campaigns and social media promotions frequently place elephants at the heart of Sri Lanka’s nature tourism brand.

Yet, according to Supun, the country’s conservation policies do not reflect the value of the species.

“On one hand, the Government is enjoying increasing tourism revenue, and elephants remain one of Sri Lanka’s most important wildlife attractions. On the other hand, narratives are being promoted that could encourage retaliation against the very species that contributes significantly to the country’s tourism industry,” Supun said.

According to the First Countrywide National Survey of Elephants conducted in 2011, Sri Lanka had 5,879 elephants. However, official statistics show that 4,167 elephants died between 2012 and 2024.

Supun stressed that these figures represent only the deaths officially recorded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

“In a context where more than 70 percent of the country’s elephant population reported in 2011 has died within 13 years, it is difficult to accept claims that the population has increased,” Supun said.

The conservationist pointed out that elephants have the longest gestation period among land mammals and that scientific studies have reported increasing interbirth intervals among female elephants together with high calf mortality.

“When such biological realities are taken into consideration, claims of a dramatic increase in elephant numbers become difficult to understand,” Supun said.

Supun believes that repeated references to increasing elephant populations risk fuelling public hostility towards elephants, particularly among farming communities already affected by crop raids and property damage.

“Such claims can create the impression that elephant populations are exploding and thereby promote retaliation against elephants as well,” Supun said.

According to Supun, Sri Lanka’s elephant crisis cannot be understood solely through population estimates. The real issue lies in the country’s failure to address human-elephant conflict through long-term, science-based solutions.

Sri Lanka continues to record among the highest levels of human-elephant conflict in the world. Every year, hundreds of elephants and dozens of people lose their lives as competition for land and resources intensifies.

Despite the scale of the crisis, Supun says authorities continue to rely on strategies that have repeatedly failed.

Lahiru Prakash

These include driving elephants into protected areas, strengthening electric fences to confine them there and allocating additional manpower to maintain fencing systems.

Supun was also critical of several proposals that emerged from district-level discussions on conflict mitigation, including the sowing of paddy and corn using Air Force drones and the planting of fruit orchards within protected areas.

“Such proposals fail to address the real ecological and social dimensions of the conflict,” Supun said.

While welcoming reports that the Government intends appointing a national-level mechanism to tackle human-elephant conflict, Supun said the challenge required intervention at the highest level of government.

“Given the gravity, complexity and geographical spread of human-elephant conflict, appointing any committee other than a Presidential Task Force is not useful,” Supun said.

He argued that a Presidential Task Force chaired by either the President or the Secretary to the President would be better positioned to overcome the bureaucratic delays and institutional fragmentation that have hindered previous efforts.

Supun also stressed the urgent need to restore and protect elephant corridors and home ranges that allow elephants to move safely across landscapes.

He cited the Koholankala elephant corridor in Hambantota as one example where removing obstacles could help reduce conflict while improving habitat connectivity.

At the same time, Supun questioned policies that permit the allocation of forest lands in areas identified by environmental assessments as crucial elephant ranges and movement corridors.

“The opening of elephant corridors and the protection of elephant home ranges must be carried out scientifically and consistently if they are to succeed,” Supun said.

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

“Elephants are ecosystem engineers. Through their feeding habits and movements, they help maintain habitats that support numerous other species. In many ways, they create safer and healthier environments for wildlife,” Supun said.

According to Supun, protecting elephants means protecting entire ecosystems and the biodiversity upon which Sri Lanka’s wildlife tourism industry depends.

“By protecting elephants, we are also protecting the biodiversity that makes Sri Lanka one of the world’s premier wildlife tourism destinations,” Supun said.

As Sri Lanka seeks to expand tourism earnings and strengthen its reputation as a wildlife destination, Supun believes the country faces a defining choice: continue with policies that have failed to stem elephant deaths and human-elephant conflict, or embrace a science-based conservation strategy that safeguards both people and wildlife.

Without a fundamental shift in policy and political will, Supun warned, Sri Lanka risks losing not only one of its most iconic species but also the ecological and economic benefits that elephants continue to provide.

“The suffering of both farmers and elephants will only intensify unless meaningful action replaces rhetoric,” Supun said.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

11 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

Katherine Castaño of Colombia claimed the Top Model of the World 2026 crown, securing a historic back-to-back victory for her country. Angelica Sanchez of Puerto Rico was named first runner-up, and Eunice Deza of the Philippines finished as second runner-up.

Katherine was crowned by outgoing titleholder Natalia Garizabal Vera of Colombia.

Several special category awards, and subsidiary titles, were also presented during the Top Model of the World 2026 pageant.

These awards recognised excellence in modelling, peer support, and regional representation.

Primary Subsidiary Titles

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage: Top 16 at
the grand finale

Miss Globe 2026: Valentina Tabares (Ecuador) — Awarded to the contestant who perfectly balances fashion modelling with traditional beauty queen qualities.

Queen of Europe 2026: Mia Danielle Williams (United Kingdom) — Given to the highest-ranking candidate from a European nation.

Special Awards Recognition

Audience Iconic Award: Charly (Dominican Republic) — Won via the official public online vote, granting her a fast-track direct entry into the Top 6.

Exotic Model of the World: Angel Emeka (Nigeria) — Awarded for exceptional editorial presence and strong runway performance.

Best Body Award: Thailand — Voted directly by fellow contestants at the Flow Spectrum Hotel. The highest-ranking runners-up for this category included Zambia, South Africa, Colombia, and Ghana.

Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico): 1st Runner-up

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

1st Runner-Up: Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico)

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

Top 6 Finalists: Included contestants from the Dominican Republic, Romania, and Germany.

The pageant, known for focusing on professional modelling careers over just beauty, brought together 36 models from around the globe for two weeks of runway, photoshoots, and cultural events.

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage walked among 36 of the world’s best and powered her way into the Top 16 at the grand finale.