Cranberries may help combat superbugs: Study

Singapore, Feb 24: Last week Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry revised their 2020 GDP growth projections downwards to -0.5 to 1.5 per cent, confirming fears of economic fallout from the coronavirus COVID-19. Just three days earlier, while visiting Changi Airport, the Prime Minister told the media that the country is bracing for a significant hit on the economy and the possibility of a recession.

In the budget announcement on February 18, various measures to help affected companies were announced.

This included a jobs support scheme to help companies retain workers that will see the government offset 8 per cent of wages up to SGD3,600(USD2,600) per worker, per month, for a three-month period. Companies will also get a 25 per cent rebate on their taxes for the year capped at SGD15,000 (USD10,800) per company.

There will be additional support for sectors directly affected by the virus outbreak such as tourism, aviation and retail. Qualifying companies will be given property tax rebates and can apply for temporary bridging loans to ease cash flow. Rebates will be offered on aircraft landing and parking charges as well as rental rebates for shops and cargo agents at Changi Airport.

Overall, the economic package will cost Singapore some USD 4.6 billion, well in excess of the USD 500 million some analysts had predicted. The resulting spending plan including the virus economic package will see a budget deficit of SGD 10.9 billion or 2.1 per cent of GDP, the highest since the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

It is hoped that with financial support, companies in Singapore will not only be able to ride through the current rough patch but be able to position themselves better to take off once the economic crisis brought upon by the contagion is over.

Which then are the Singapore companies that can potentially ride out the current storm and emerge stronger?

Aviation and hospitality firms are among those most impacted by the virus outbreak and Singapore Airlines (SIA) comes to mind. SIA is a well-run company but has seen its share price fall about 5.2 percent since the beginning of the year. In the short term, revenue and profits will no doubt be affected but it will recover in the long run.

Hospitality sector companies like Ascott Residence whose main sponsor is Capitaland, Southeast Asia's largest landlord, and CDL Hospitality, have seen 1.5 and 5.5 percent (respectively) shaved off their share prices since the start of the year.

In reporting financial results for the quarter which ended in December on February 14, Alibaba CEO Daniel Zhang said that due to the virus, they are seeing large changes in buying patterns. With widespread home confinement, there is a growing demand for delivery services including online food and grocery delivery, as well as office apps and streaming entertainment.

Similarly, in Singapore, with more people staying and working from home, the three main food delivery services, Grab Food, Foodpanda and Deliveroo, are doing roaring business. All three are privately held.

In late January, as the scale of the outbreak became more apparent, investors began pouring money into health-product firms in Asia that they think will benefit from the virus outbreak.

Bloomberg reported that when Chinese pharmaceutical companies like Da An Gene Co, Xilong Scientific and Shanghai Kehua Bio-Engineering said they have developed kits for detecting the virus, their stocks soared to hit the 10 per cent daily limit. Firms manufacturing protection gear and air-cleaning equipment climbed more than 10 per cent in Japan, while Malaysian rubber gloves producers climbed at least 5 per cent.

Naturally, many would view that pharmaceutical companies that have the technology and expertise to develop drugs to treat patients with the virus or are able to develop a vaccine, would stand to benefit from the coronavirus outbreak.

Firms like and Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi are the pharmaceutical behemoths that dominate the global vaccine market.

However, industry experts speaking to the BBC warned that a pot of gold is not necessarily waiting for any company that successfully develops a vaccine. Although the global vaccine market is expected to grow to USD60 billion this year, it is costly and time-consuming to develop and pass it through for use by the general public.

It is also unclear if Indian pharmaceutical firms will be able to benefit from the demand for medicines that can treat or prevent the virus.

India is the world's largest manufacturer of generic drugs and it supplies 20 percent of the world's drugs by volume. However, it sources 70 percent of its raw material from China. If supplies are disrupted beyond a month to a month and a half, they may see a slow-down in production. According to a CNN report, the companies that are most impacted by material shortages are GSK India, Pfizer (PFE) and Cipla. Other companies like Aurobindo Pharma, Cadila Healthcare and Sun Pharma are said to be carefully monitoring the situation.

Geneva, May 17: Spraying disinfectant on the streets, as practised in some countries, does not eliminate the new coronavirus and even poses a health risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned on Saturday.

In a document on cleaning and disinfecting surfaces as part of the response to the virus, the WHO says spraying can be ineffective. "Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is... not recommended to kill the Covid-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris," explains the WHO.

"Even in the absence of organic matter, chemical spraying is unlikely to adequately cover all surfaces for the duration of the required contact time needed to inactivate pathogens." The WHO said that streets and pavements are not considered as "reservoirs of infection" of Covid-19, adding that spraying disinfectants, even outside, can be "dangerous for human health".

The document also stresses that spraying individuals with disinfectants is "not recommended under any circumstances".

"This could be physically and psychologically harmful and would not reduce an infected person's ability to spread the virus through droplets or contact," said the document.

Spraying chlorine or other toxic chemicals on people can cause eye and skin irritation, bronchospasm and gastrointestinal effects, it adds.

The organisation is also warning against the systematic spraying and fumigating of disinfectants on to surfaces in indoor spaces, citing a study that has shown it to be ineffective outside direct spraying areas.

"If disinfectants are to be applied, this should be done with a cloth or wipe that has been soaked in disinfectant," it says.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of the pandemic that has killed more than 300,000 people worldwide since its appearance in late December in China, can attach itself to surfaces and objects.

However, no precise information is currently available for the period during which the viruses remain infectious on the various surfaces.

Studies have shown that the virus can stay on several types of surfaces for several days. However, these maximum durations are only theoretical because they are recorded under laboratory conditions and should be "interpreted with caution" in the real-world environment.

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.