Mani Shankar Aiyar calls Modi ‘neech’; suspended from Congress

India has jumped past 4.5 lakh coronavirus cases and 14,476 people have succumbed to the viral infection so far. In this backdrop, speaking to IANS in an exclusive interview, AIIMS Director Randeep Guleria said India is also vulnerable to second wave of coronavirus and people should continue to follow social distancing, wearing mask and other precautions, after cases begin to decline.

He added that in order to contain the outbreak of Covid-19, a limited lockdown in hotspots, where volume of cases is very high, may be considered along with a micro-plan to prevent leakage of cases from these areas to other non-containment areas. Excerpts of the interview are below:

Q: Reports say China and South Korea are witnessing a second wave of coronavirus infection, what is this second wave, is India also vulnerable to this?

A: When cases come down significantly, people tend to drop their guard against the viral infection, and this leads to the second wave (which means a sudden increase in the number of cases). After cases begin to decline, people should continue to follow the precautions -- continue to maintain social distancing and wear masks regularly. See what happened in Singapore, it was struck by a second wave of coronavirus. Look, what happened in the 1918 pandemic, people dropped their guard and the second wave of viral infection struck back. If people do not follow social distancing then the spike in cases is apparent. We need to take these precautions at least for one year. India is also vulnerable to this second wave.

Q: If Covid-19 cases continue to rise rapidly, do you think we need another lockdown in areas where volume of cases are very high?

A: A large volume of cases is concentrated in specific areas like hotspots, and in order to maintain things in order, we may need a limited lockdown in these areas. This should be followed by a micro-plan which entails extensive testing of people and also extensive contact tracing of people who have got in touch with positive people. Need to ensure there is no leakage of cases from these areas. People from these areas should not mix with others in non-containment areas. This will aid in containing the outbreak of the virus. People who have developed symptoms should get themselves tested, especially in the containment areas.

Q: With more than 4.5 lakh cases and close to 14,500 deaths, do you think India has reached its peak and a decline in cases is prominent?

A: The cases will continue to increase for some time. The doubling time of cases has also increased. But, the cases will also begin to flatten. Though, it is difficult to give an exact time period in this viral infection, it seems, the growth in cases will flatten in the end of July or beginning of August. A decline will come to this viral infection, but it does not mean that people should drop their guard. As a measure, we need to decrease community participation and citizens should continue to follow social distancing. People should get themselves tested. All these efforts will help in preventing people from contracting this virus. These precautions will also prevent us from the second wave, and we must continue to take precautions. The virus has not gone away, it is still lurking.

Q: India has crossed the 4.5 lakh coronavirus cases so far, although our recovery rate is good, but still 10,000 to 15,000 cases are reported daily. Why do cases continue to spiral, what is the reason?

A: We have to remember a few things -- the bulk of cases are in 10 cities, nearly 70 per cent, and if we take into account cases per million population, the number is not very high, as compared with countries including countries in Europe. Many European countries put together still do not add up to the Indian population. Do not compare India to countries like Italy, Spain etc. We need to focus on hotspots, which contribute to between 70 -80 per cent of cases, and we have to identify cases in these areas at an early stage. The population density is very high in these cities. People in lower socio-economic status are highly vulnerable to the viral infection, as many live together in small spaces and there is a lot of mixing of people happening there. Look at the market places, people are not following social distancing and not wearing masks. In fact, many are in close vicinity of each other.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.

New Delhi, Jun 4: CSIR Director-General Shekhar Mande said on Thursday that the World Health Organisation's (WHO) decision to halt hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drug trial was taken in haste and the global body should have actually analysed the data before making the decision.

"I firmly believe that WHO decision was taken in haste it was a kind of knee jerk reaction they should have actually analyse the data on their own before temporarily suspend the trials that is my personal opinion," Mande said.

India's nodal government agency ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) overseeing the country's response to the coronavirus pandemic last month wrote to the WHO citing differences in dosage standards between Indian and international trials that could explain the efficacy issues of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients.

In addition, Dr Sheela Godbole, National Coordinator of the WHO-India Solidarity Trial and Head of the Division of Epidemiology, ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute also wrote a letter via an email to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at World Health Organisation.

In a letter, Dr Godbole stated: "There was no reason to suspend the trial for safety concern," attributing it to the current RECOVERY data which differs significantly from the non-randomised assessment by Mehra et al, a scientific paper.

Referring to the letter, the CSIR head said, "We don't know what actually happened behind the scenes but the hypothesis is that because of the paper published in Lancet. It is a very well known journal and if Lancet has done due vigilance in publishing the paper. 

Therefore, the WHO thought the paper's findings are right that's why WHO hold based on what is published on Lancet. The WHO shouldn't have accepted it immediately this should have taken their own due vigilance to find out that study is right or not."

DG CSIR said because there is a global outcry it must have put pressure on both Lancet as well as WHO and both of them now retracted from their original position. "WHO has started a trial again and Lancet has put an expression of concern on their website both of these are very welcome development for science," he said.

"So I am pretty sure that Lancet would have published the reports only after seeing somewhere the drug failed to work," Mande said.