📰 WHO’s approval for Covaxin likely this month
Covaxin is one of the six vaccines that have received emergency use authorisation from India’s drug regulator
•The World Health Organization’s approval for the indigenous COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin, developed by the Hyderabad-based Bharat Biotech, is likely to come this month, official sources said on Monday.
•The WHO has so far approved COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, U.S. pharma majors Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, China’s Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca for emergency use.
•Covaxin is one of the six vaccines that have received emergency use authorisation from India’s drug regulator and is being used in the nationwide inoculation programme, alongwith Covishield and Sputnik V.
•“The WHO approval for Covaxin is likely this month,” an official source said.
•The Centre had told Rajya Sabha in July that all documents required for the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing (EUL) have been submitted by Bharat Biotech as of July 9, and the global health body had commenced the review process.
Engagement with the U.S. should help India expand mitigation, adaptation action
•India’s front-line position as third highest emitter of greenhouse gases has sharpened focus on its future policy course to mitigate carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. It has an irrefutable claim to a big part of the remaining global carbon budget, along with other smaller nations with low historical emissions, but room for manoeuvring has shrunk in a world facing record temperatures and calamitous weather events. There is escalating pressure for India to commit itself to a date when it can achieve net zero — removing as much GHGs as it emits — on the lines of the goal set by the U.S. and the European Union for mid-century, and 2060 by China. Declaring a net zero plan under the Paris pact is a disquieting prospect since it would impose expensive choices, particularly in energy production. That conundrum has been addressed, at least partially, by visiting U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, with the promise of financing and technology to make renewable energy the core of future development. Specific areas of cooperation to bring down emissions — in the expansion of transport, buildings and industry — and facilitating funding for 450 GW of renewable energy by 2030 can advance the India-U.S. Climate and Clean Energy Agenda 2030 Partnership. More clarity on the bilateral road map towards emissions reduction may come at the COP26 conference in November. India, meanwhile, needs to get all States to mitigate emissions and help them adapt to climate-linked extreme weather and atmospheric pollution caused by fossil fuels.
•At the end of 2020, a year marked by COVID-19 and many destructive storms, the Union Environment Ministry declared that the country had achieved 21% of its 33%-35% target to cut emissions intensity of GDP by 2030, and, similarly, was generating 37.9% of the 40% of power from renewables. Though encouraging, the immediate challenge lies in coming up with an adaptation framework to help those at highest risk — the millions living in the path of annual cyclones, including residents of populous coastal cities. Raising the ability of city administrations to handle tens of millions of litres of water regularly dumped in just a few days requires planning, funding and political commitment. Making low-cost insurance available for houses against climate-related losses will raise resilience, and lead to audits, encouraging governments to reduce risks. The Paris Agreement can easily fund much-needed urban retrofitting and boost employment. There is also a health imperative. Heat stress has a severe impact, causing higher mortality among the vulnerable elderly. These are growing problems, but they also represent an opportunity to steer post-COVID-19 policies towards benign, green development. For a low-emissions future, policies must put nature at the centre.
📰 Partners in the Indo-Pacific
The ‘2+2’ dialogue between India and Australia will provide substance to an already meaningful partnership
•A few days ago, India’s Defence Minister and External Affairs Minister held the inaugural ‘2+2’ talks with their Australian counterparts. Both countries are taking several steps to implement their vision of a peaceful and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.
Positive trajectory of relations
•India and Australia have completed one year of their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and their bond is deepening. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison elevated their bilateral strategic partnership to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in June 2020. Their personal connection is providing the political framework and impetus to this partnership. There is a growing convergence of views on geo-strategic and geo-economic issues backed by a robust people-to-people connection. Both countries have stepped up collaborations through institutions and organisations on many issues in bilateral, trilateral, plurilateral and multilateral formats. Further, elevation of their ‘2+2’ Foreign and Defence Secretaries’ Dialogue to the ministerial level emphasises the positive trajectory of their transforming relations.
•Both countries have an enduring interest in a free, open, inclusive and rule-based Indo-Pacific region. It includes stability and freedom of navigation for all nations in the region. Given their common security challenges and in order to enhance regional security architecture, both countries have intensified bilateral security cooperation. They have also stepped up security dialogue with key partner-countries to deepen coordination in areas where security interests are mutual. The Malabar naval exercise by the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, the U.S.) is a step in this direction. While this signals deeper engagement and cooperation between the Quad countries at the strategic level, at the tactical level, it also allows the navies to develop and enhance advanced warfare tactics. In the Malabar naval exercise of 2021, India was represented by the Indian navy stealth frigate INS Shivalik and anti-submarine warfare corvette INS Kadmatt, while Australia was represented by its Anzac-class frigate HMAS Warramonga.
•Trading between India and Australia has seen remarkable growth in recent years. Two-way trade between them was valued at $24.4 billion in 2020. The Indian economy is not only one of the largest economies in the world, but it is also going through a tectonic economic transformation. In this endeavour, Australia is a valued partner as both draw their congruence from a rule-based international order, believe in inclusive economic integration in the Indo-Pacific region, and face challenges from a belligerent China. Trade is rapidly growing and encompasses agribusiness, infrastructure, healthcare, energy and mining, education, artificial intelligence, big data and fintech. Both countries are working to build a long-term sustainable economic relation. In a joint communique last month, India’s Commerce and Industry Minister and the Australian Trade Minister announced that an early harvest agreement by December will pave the way for an early conclusion of a bilateral Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between both countries.
•But despite the growth in trade, India and Australia need to resolve old issues that pose a barrier to deeper economic integration. India has a high tariff for agriculture and dairy products which makes it difficult for Australian exporters to export these items to India. At the same time, India faces non-tariff barriers and its skilled professionals in the Australian labour market face discrimination.
Forging a deep partnership
•India-Australia relations have deepened in the last few decades owing to the alignment of strategic interests driven by a common value system. Both are vibrant democracies which have respect for international laws and a belief in the equality of all nations irrespective of their size and strength. It is expected that the ‘2+2’ dialogue will provide substance to this partnership. Expected meetings between the two Prime Ministers will further deepen political understanding and open more avenues for collaborations. Beyond bilateralism, both countries are also entering into partnerships with like-minded countries, including Indonesia, Japan and France, in a trilateral framework.
•The Quad has gained momentum in recent months. The time is ripe for these countries to deliberate on a ‘Quad+’ framework. The geo-political and geo-economic churning in international affairs makes it imperative for India and Australia to forge a partnership guided by principles with a humane approach.
📰 Should children be given COVID-19 jabs?
The debate on opening up schools should be delinked from the discussions on vaccinating children
•With schools shutting down and restrictions being placed on movement, children have suffered a lot over the last one and a half years. There is a lot of debate now on administering COVID-19 vaccines to children in the context of schools reopening in India. As practising scientists and concerned parents, we have followed scientific literature on these topics. Any medical intervention, specifically for children, should involve a careful risk-benefit analysis. What is the risk of children being affected by COVID-19? Is the risk of the vaccine guaranteed to be lower than this? Are trials designed to uncover rare risks? What about long-term risks? We seek to explore these questions.
Comparing risks
•The risk of severe outcomes due to COVID-19 in children is very rare, and chance of death is extremely low (about two in a million). Even children who were severely affected were found to have chronic conditions. These facts have not changed even with the Delta variant. Numbers may not make much sense since we are emotional about children. So, to understand the risk, consider the following comparisons. For a child, the likelihood of succumbing to COVID-19 is about the same as being hit by lightning. For those aged below 25, the risk of traffic accidents or even suicide is about 10 times higher than death due to COVID-19. Even the risk of long-lasting COVID-19 symptoms is very rare in children.
•Now, let’s compare this with the risk posed by vaccines. While the risk of the current COVID-19 vaccines is certainly low, it is not nil. This is relevant since the risk of severe COVID-19 is low in children. Both serious adverse effects and vaccine-related deaths in adults have been reported all over the world, including in India. Based on a risk-benefit analysis, Australia, the U.K., and many European countries have not recommended AstraZeneca (Covishield) for children. The only vaccines in use for 12+ are the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and these too put children at risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle). A recent study from the U.S. reported a one in 6,000 risk of cardiac adverse event risk from the Pfizer vaccine for boys aged 12-15; similar numbers have been reported from Israel and Canada too. That such findings are coming after having vaccinated millions of children is worrying.
Long-term safety not assured
•Aside from the short-term effects, there is the question of long-term safety too. All the current COVID-19 vaccines being rolled out have only limited short-term safety data; clinical trials will go on till 2023. It may take a few years to start seeing long-term effects. Further, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a new gene-based technology (mRNA) different from prior vaccine technology. The long-term safety of this new technology itself is unknown. These aspects have to be juxtaposed with the low risk children face from COVID-19: there is/was no COVID-19-related medical emergency for children.
•An aspect underlining the significance of the issue of long-term safety is that all the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been granted zero liability. An AstraZeneca senior executive explained why pharmaceutical companies have requested zero liability: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in…four years the vaccine is showing side effects.”
•The importance of long-term safety is further stressed by the fact that the past history of ‘emergency vaccines’ is not all rosy. The swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was rolled out in response to the 2010 pandemic. It was later withdrawn when it was found that around one in every 55,000 jabs led to narcolepsy (a chronic sleep disorder) in children. Dengvaxia, a vaccine against dengue, was withdrawn in 2017 after 19 children (1 in 44,000) died of possible antibody-dependent enhancement.
•A crucial aspect to consider in the context of safety is the size of the current vaccine trials. It is pertinent to note that some of the risks for adults did not show up during the adult trials (for example, given the trial size of 32,449 for AstraZeneca, blood clots as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is a one in 50,000 chance, could not be detected). In India, the current trial sizes for children are just 525 for Covaxin and 1,000 for ZyCoV-D. These are abysmally low and insufficient to catch even, say, a one in 1,000 side-effect risk. This is extremely concerning.
•Even though children and young adults are not at high risk from severe COVID-19 (unlike adults), some countries like France and Germany have allowed all those above 12 years of age to be vaccinated in the hope that this will prevent community transmission and lead to herd immunity via vaccination. However recent data are increasingly showing this to be scientifically wrong as the current vaccines neither prevent infection nor transmission. This is evidenced by high case counts even in highly vaccinated countries such as Israel and Iceland. Furthermore, it is morally wrong to put children at risk (without assured long-term vaccine safety) to protect adults, especially when those adults anyway have access to a COVID-19 vaccine that is effective against hospitalisation/deaths. Indeed, the U.K. decided “not to recommend the vaccine to all healthy children” given the lack of clear benefits for them.
•Since the risk of severe COVID-19 is low in children, the medical benefit of COVID-19 vaccination for children is questionable, and the lack of studies on long-term safety as well as small trial sizes are concerning. COVID-19 vaccines for children may be warranted in exceptional cases, such as for those with other co-morbidities who are at higher risk from COVID-19. In any event, parents have the best interests of their children in mind. Given that vaccinations are an irreversible medical procedure, parents should do due diligence before vaccinating their children: examine all available evidence, ask pertinent questions to experts and then make an informed choice. Vaccination should also not be mandated; parental choice is critical.
Time to open schools
•There has been recent talk of tying school reopening to children’s COVID-19 vaccines. There is no scientific basis to this as schools were opened safely in most other countries, often before vaccine trials were under way. Further, sero-surveys show that a large percentage of children have already been exposed to COVID-19: we just did not notice it since severe COVID-19 is very rare in children. And it is not that vaccines are readily available in India (Covaxin and ZyCoV-D are still under trials). Uptake among those who wish to take it will take many months. How long can we keep schools shut? The vast majority of parents who want to send their children to school should have the option to do so. We have the ignoble distinction of being one of the few countries which have not yet fully opened schools, while over 175 countries have opened schools with safety protocols prioritising children’s education and safeguarding their country’s future.
📰 Behind the great Indian Internet shutdown
The tag of the world’s Internet shutdown capital stems from a lack of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines
•On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India held that access to information via the Internet is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This was in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, where the top court also ruled that any restriction on Internet access by the Government must be temporary, limited in scope, lawful, necessary and proportionate. The Court reiterated that the Government’s orders restricting Internet access are subject to review by Courts.
•The expectation was that this decision would limit the instances of Internet suspension to only those exceptional situations where there is a public emergency or a threat to public safety — the legislatively mandated prerequisites for restricting Internet access. Unfortunately, these promises have remained unfulfilled. The year following the decision, India saw more instances of Internet shutdown than the year preceding it. India’s Internet restrictions also accounted for more than 70% of the total loss to the global economy in 2020, and India remains infamous as the Internet shutdown capital of the world.
Recent restrictions
•As we write this, the Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has restricted access to mobile data in the Valley of Kashmir. A few days ago, all Internet services had been shut down. These restrictions have been issued in the wake of the death of hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Similar restrictions have been ordered by the government of Haryana in five different districts following farmers’ protests that were organised there. While in these instances, the governments have published the orders restricting access, such publication remains an exception and not the rule despite the decision in Anuradha Bhasin (the Haryana orders are on social media but have not been uploaded on government websites).
•According to an Internet shutdown tracker maintained by the Software Freedom Law Centre, in July and August, the government of J&K suspended Internet services on five separate occasions — in the districts of Baramulla, Pulwama and Shopian. The suspension orders for these instances have still not been uploaded on the government’s websites. Even in May 2021, the government of J&K suspended Internet services on three occasions in these districts. In these instances, the orders were only published sometime in June 2021 after a significant delay. Although the J&K government is the most irreverent about Internet restriction, they are not the only culprits. Compliance with Anuradha Bhasin remains low in other parts of India as well.
Erodes trust
•The importance of the publication of Internet suspension orders cannot be understated. Those aggrieved with the restriction cannot approach a court of law to question an order’s legality in the absence of the order. At best, if they do, the court may direct the Government to produce the order, but this will allow the Government to delay production of the order until after the restriction has subsided. This enables the Government to get away with illegal restrictions. This non-publication of orders also undermines public confidence in the Government. The Internet is a necessity in this day and age, and restrictions without publicly disclosed reasons create a trust deficit.
•There is also a deficit because the Union Government has also not done enough to give statutory recognition to the directions in Anuradha Bhasin. In 2020, it amended the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 to limit Internet suspension orders to a maximum of 15 days. However, the amendment did not include an obligation on the Government to publish orders nor did it include the Supreme Court’s direction to undertake periodic review of these orders.
Lack of awareness
•As a result, the governmental non-compliance with the law is difficult to comprehend. One has to study the decision of the Supreme Court as opposed to simply looking at the rules to understand the obligations on the Government. The experience with Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has shown that if Supreme Court decisions are not statutorily recognised, the officials enforce the law incorrectly simply because of a lack of awareness. As an example, the State of Meghalaya in reply to an RTI application stated that it was not even aware of the judgment in Anuradha Bhasin even though eight months had passed since the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.
Wide-ranging impact
•However, Internet suspension also remains a problem independent of non-compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. In 2020, the Indian economy suffered losses to the tune of $2.8 billion due to 129 separate instances of Internet suspension, which affected 10.3 million individuals. The Internet is a source of information, entertainment, health care, education, livelihood and a platform for the members of Indian society to interact with each other and the world at large.
•The harm — economic, psychological, social, and journalistic — caused by such suspensions outweighs any speculative benefits. Internet suspensions ought to be imposed in times of emergency and not to stifle the democratic exercise of the right to protest. In those times, the Internet is a necessity to seek help.
•Moreover, it is also a tool to verify rumours, and enables individuals and the Government to disseminate the truth. On September 2, the government of J&K restricted access to any form of communication on the ground that the ‘provocative material on social media’ could misguide the general public and result in a law and order situation.
•A similar reason was stated to justify the Internet suspension in Karnal, Haryana. However, the Government will do well to recognise that offline rumours can also ‘misguide the public’, but the individuals will not have access to the Internet to determine the veracity of those rumours independently.
•Internet restrictions are often justified on the ground that they are limited to mobile data services. These contentions also miss the point. According to a 2019 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) report on Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators, mobile device users (dongle and phone) constituted 97.02% of total Internet users. Only 3% of users have access to broadband Internet. These numbers are not likely to have changed significantly since then, since broadband Internet continues to be expensive. It follows from this that Internet restrictions also tend to adversely affect those from lower socio-economic backgrounds more.
•Considering these issues, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court, in Anuradha Bhasin, permitted the Government to restrict Internet access only in limited circumstances. Parliament has also allowed these restrictions only in a public emergency or when there is a threat to public safety. Yet, to much dismay, Internet restrictions are much more common than desirable and cannot be challenged because of a lack of transparency. More faithful compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines on the part of the executive government is needed to rid ourselves of the tag of the “internet shutdown capital” of the world and fulfil Digital India’s potential.
📰 Powering ahead in the future
We can ensure that manufacturers overcome their reluctance to enter the electric vehicles market
•Several things are going right regarding two-wheeler electrification in India. First, the government increased the FAME-II incentives for electric two-wheelers (E2W) to ₹15,000/kWh. Second, more States such as Gujarat and Maharashtra have announced State-level electric vehicle incentives as part of their State policies. Third, many startups are launching new electric two-wheeler models.
•As a result, E2W sales in India are likely to at least double in 2021 compared with 2020 levels. Yet, even if that happens, E2Ws will account for less than a per cent of new two-wheeler sales. This is in part because the industry leaders (Hero MotoCorp, Honda, TVS, Bajaj, Suzuki, Royal Enfield and Yamaha), who account for nearly 99% of all two-wheelers sold in India, offer only two electric models between them, and only in a handful of cities.
Overcoming reluctance
•The most active electric vehicle markets of the world have overcome this reluctance of leading companies to make and sell electric vehicles in two ways. The first is to establish a zero emission vehicles (ZEV) credit programme. This requires manufacturers of vehicles to ensure that either a certain fraction of their sales are ZEVs or that they purchase ZEV credits from manufacturers who have sold more ZEVs than required by the credit programme. There are many possible regulatory approaches by which India could set up such a programme. California and several U.S. States as well as China have used such an approach to stimulate model availability of electric vehicles.
•The second is by putting in place a fuel efficiency/CO2 emission standard stringent enough that it can best be met by making and selling ZEVs. As the example of the European Union’s passenger car CO2 standards shows, if CO2 standards are sufficiently stringent, mainstream manufacturers introduce electric vehicles in meaningful numbers. In a recent briefing paper, my colleagues argued that India could use such an approach with great effect. If the 2W CO2 standards for FY2025–26 are set at 25gCO2/km (compared with 38gCO2/km in 2020–21), our research shows the cost-effective market share could be as high as 19% for electric motorcycles and 13% for electric scooters, for a 32% electric vehicle share of the total two-wheeler market. Similarly, if the two-wheeler fuel consumption standard were set at or below 20gCO2/km for 2030, that would likely ensure that at least 60% of new two-wheeler sales are electric that year. Conversely, if the 2025–26 standards are lenient, say as high as 30gCO2/km, then it will be cheaper to comply with ICE technology, and the standards will create no incentive in the market for E2Ws.
Environment friendly
•In short, there are two reliable ways to overcome manufacturers’ reluctance to enter wholeheartedly into the electric vehicles market: a mandate requiring them to build and sell electric vehicles, or efficiency standards stringent/ambitious enough to make building and selling electric vehicles the most profitable thing for them to do. We know that the total cost of ownership of E2W is already competitive with petrol two-wheelers thanks to generous State and national incentives, and petrol prices being above ₹100/litre. We also know that an E2W purchased today will contribute to an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. E2W are cost effective on total cost of ownership basis today, and likely to reach upfront cost parity later this decade. E2W will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will be a cost-effective alternative for manufacturers to do so if tailpipe CO2 standards are set at stringent levels.
•What we need now is for the Bureau of Energy Efficiency and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to set 2W fuel consumption standards at 25gCO2/km in 2025 and 20gCO2/km in 2030. Doing so will not only ensure a 30% E2W share in 2025 and a 60% E2W share in 2030, but it will also pave the way for India to transition completely to E2W across all two-wheeler segments by 2035.
