US confirms 1,069,534 coronavirus cases, death toll at 63,001

Beijing/Wuhan, Apr 17: China's coronavirus death toll mounted to 4,632 on Friday as the country revised figures in its epicentre Wuhan with 1,290 additional fatalities amid international criticism of under-reporting of COVID-19 data.

The Wuhan municipal headquarters on Friday revised the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths due to the disease, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

As of April 16, the total number of confirmed coronavirus cases in Wuhan was increased by 325 to 50,333 and the number of fatalities up by 1,290 to 3,869.

The revised figure raised China's overall COVID-19 death toll to 4,632. The total number of cases also increased to 82,692.

The Wuhan municipal headquarters in a notification said the revisions were made in accordance with related laws and regulations as well as the principle of being responsible for history, the people and the deceased.

The revision of figures came amid sharp criticism of China by the US and other nations for its alleged under-reporting of the coronavirus cases and cover-up of the origin of the viral strain, which emerged in Wuhan in December last, reportedly from the local Hunan sea food market.

Explaining the reason for the figure revision, the Wuhan municipality said it was done to ensure that the information on the city's COVID-19 epidemic is open and transparent, and that the data are accurate.

Listing the reasons for the data discrepancies, it said the surging number of patients at the early stage of the epidemic overwhelmed medical resources and the admission capacity of medical institutions. Some patients died at home without having been treated in hospitals.

Besides, during the height of their treating efforts, hospitals were operating beyond their capacities and medical staff were preoccupied with saving and treating patients, resulting in belated, missed and mistaken reporting.

Also, due to a rapid increase of designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 patients -- including those administered by ministries, Hubei Province, Wuhan city and its districts, those affiliated to companies, as well as private hospitals and makeshift hospitals -- a few medical institutions were not linked to the epidemic information network and failed to report their data in time.

The registered information of some of the deceased patients was incomplete, and there were repetitions and mistakes in the reporting, the Wuhan authorities noted.

Citing an official of the Wuhan municipal headquarters, Xinhua reported that a group for epidemic-related big data and epidemiological investigations was established in late March.

The group used information from online systems and collected full information from all epidemic-related locations to ensure that facts about every case are accurate and every figure is objective and correct.

"What lie behind the epidemic data are the lives and health of the general public, as well as the credibility of the government," the official was quoted by the report.

The timely revision of the figures, among other things, shows respect for every single life, the official said.

Meanwhile, the revised cases were not included in the overall national figures released by China's National Commission (NHC) in its daily report on Friday as it reports previous day's cases.

As per NHC data, as of Thursday the overall confirmed cases of coronavirus was 82,367, including 3,342 deaths.

As many as 1,081 patients are being treated and 77,944 people discharged after recovery, it said.

NHC said it received reports of 26 new confirmed COVID-19 cases from the mainland on Thursday, of which 15 were imported.

The other 11 new cases were domestically transmitted, it said, noting that five cases were reported in Guangdong Province, three in Heilongjiang Province, two in Shandong Province and one in Liaoning Province.

No death was reported on Thursday on the mainland.

As of Thursday, China has a total of 1,549 imported cases, NHC said, adding that 879 were undergoing treatment with 45 in severe condition. Besides, there were 66 new asymptomatic cases, taking the tally to 1,038.

Kuala Lumpur, Feb 25: The government party led by Interim Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has rejected his resignation, urging him to continue leading it and the country, now shrouded in political uncertainty.

During an extraordinary meeting held on Monday night, the Malaysian United Indigenous Party (Bersatu) unanimously rejected the 94-year-old Prime Minister's decision, reports Efe news.

Mahathir, the world's oldest head of government, presented his resignation on Monday, later accepted by King Abdullah Pahang, on condition that he continue as Interim Prime Minister until a new government is formed.

That decision caused a domino effect that broke the Patakan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) alliance, formed in 2018 by four political parties that prevailed in that year's general elections.

Bersatu and 11 Popular Justice Party deputies announced their departure from the coalition, although they reaffirmed their confidence in Mahathir as Malaysia's political leader.

"We remain intact and prepared to build a party to face the difficulties," Marzuki Yahya, Bersatu Secretary-General, said after the meeting.

Confusion reigns in the country, with some local media claiming Bersatu and the 11 deputies Justice Party deputies intended to form a new government with opposition parties, including the historic Barisan Nasional coalition, under Mahathir's leadership.

Lim Guan Eng, Finance Minister and coalition member, said in a statement that the chief executive himself had informed him he had no intention of forming a coalition with Barisan, which suffered a historic defeat in the last elections.

A future government will need at least 112 of 222 parliament votes.

Mahathir returned to politics in 2018 heading the Patakan Harapan coalition to defeat his predecessor Najib Razak, marred by the corruption suspicions offenses.

To that end, Mahathir joined Anwar Ibrahim, a former political ally who fell out of favour in 1999 and was imprisoned five years on charges of corruption and sodomy, whom he promised to be his successor in power.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.