Grapes may protect you from Alzheimer's: 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.

Lower neighbourhood socioeconomic status and greater household crowding increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, warn researchers.

"Our study shows that neighbourhood socioeconomic status and household crowding are strongly associated with risk of infection," said study lead author Alexander Melamed from Columbia University in the US.

"This may explain why Black and Hispanic people living in these neighbourhoods are disproportionately at risk for contracting the virus," Melamed added.

For the findings, published in the journal JAMA, the researchers examined the relationships between COVID-19 infection and neighbourhood characteristics in 396 women who gave birth during the peak of the Covid-19 outbreak in New York City. Since March 22, all women admitted to the hospitals for delivery have been tested for the virus, which gave the researchers the opportunity to detect all infections -- including infections with no symptoms -- in a defined population

The strongest predictor of COVID-19 infection among these women was residence in a neighbourhood where households with many people are common.The findings showed that women who lived in a neighbourhood with high household membership were three times more likely to be infected with the virus. Neighbourhood poverty also appeared to be a factor, the researchers said.Women were twice as likely to get COVID-19 if they lived in neighbourhoods with a high poverty rate, although that relationship was not statistically significant due to the small sample size.

The study revealed that there was no association between infection and population density.

"New York City has the highest population density of any city in the US, but our study found that the risks are related more to density in people's domestic environments rather than density in the city or within neighbourhoods," says co-author Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman."

The knowledge that SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are higher in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and among people who live in crowded households could help public health officials target preventive measures," the authors wrote.

Recently, another study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, showed that dense areas were associated with lower COVID-19 death rates.

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.