Objectively, or subjectively? I'd say an outbreak objectively becomes a pandemic when at least 1% of the population of multiple countries spread around the globe become infected. An outbreak subjectively becomes a pandemic when a tiny fraction of one percent of the population in multiple countries become infected and an even smaller fraction of those die from the infection, but nevertheless the media says it's a pandemic (to sell papers/gain readers/earn money). So yeah, we're in a subjective pandemic, i.e. not one at all.
The use of the word 'pandemic' is interesting here, as thus far the WHO has not used the p-word yet, at least not as far as am able to ascertain. On their website, they still use the word 'outbreak'.
Coronavirus
I think this article
Is Wall Street Behind the Delay in Declaring the Coronavirus Outbreak a “Pandemic”? by Whitney Webb of yesterday is of some relevance here.
Here some snippets:
'The refusal to label the outbreak a pandemic is odd, since it
refers to an epidemic or actively spreading disease that affects two or more regions worldwide. This currently describes the geographical spread of the highly contagious novel coronavirus, which has now resulted in significant clusters of cases far from China, namely in Italy and Iran. Countries closer to China, like South Korea, have also recently experienced an explosion in novel coronavirus infections.'
'It is possible that concerns over using the word “pandemic” could upset global markets and lead to economic turmoil, similar to what happened to the U.S. stock market following the CDC announcement on Tuesday. Though such concerns are valid, there is also evidence that a particular class of bonds issued by the World Bank that are closely related to official declarations of pandemics may also be responsible for having steered WHO and CDC officials away from using this term, even though the consequences of doing so could negatively impact global public health.'
'In June 2017,
the World Bank announced the creation of “specialized bonds” that would be used to fund the previously created Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) in the event of an officially-recognized (i.e. WHO-recognized) pandemic.'
'They were essentially sold under the premise that those who invested in the bonds would lose their money if any of six deadly pandemics hit, including coronavirus. Yet, if a pandemic did not occur before the bonds mature on July 15, 2020, investors would receive what they had originally paid for the bonds back in addition to interest and premium payments on those bonds that they recieve between the date of purchase and the bond’s maturation date.'
'In 2017, the news site
Quartz described the mechanism of “pandemic bonds” as follows:
Investors buy the bonds and receive regular coupons payments in return.
If there is an outbreak of disease, the investors don’t get their initial money back. There are two varieties of debt, both
scheduled to mature in July 2020.
The first bond raised $225 million and features an interest rate of around 7%.
Payout on the bond is suspended if there is an outbreak of new influenza viruses or coronaviridae (SARS, MERS). The second, riskier bond raised $95 million at an interest rate of more than 11%. This
bond keeps investors’ money if there is an outbreak of Filovirus,
Coronavirus, Lassa Fever, Rift Valley Fever, and/or Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. The World Bank also issued
$105 million in swap derivatives that work in a similar way. (emphasis added)”'
'Some analysts have argued that these pandemic bonds were never intended to aid low-income pandemic-stricken countries, but instead to enrich Wall Street investors. For instance, American economic forecaster Martin Armstrong
has called the World Bank’s pandemic bonds “a giant gamble in the global financial casino” and a “scheme like no other,” recently arguing that these bonds could present a “a structured derivative time bomb” that could upend financial markets if a pandemic is declared by WHO. Armstrong went on to say that it is in WHO’s interest to declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, but noted that, in doing so, they would cause bondholders to take significant losses.'
'As the coronavirus outbreak grows, concern has grown among those invested in pandemic bonds that payout to countries affected by coronavirus will be triggered, despite the clear delay by WHO in declaring the outbreak as a pandemic. While WHO could theoretically alter the criteria that would trigger payout and cause bondholders to lose big, some recent reports have claimed that bondholders are
seeking to rid themselves of the bonds prior to their July maturation date.'
'
German media outlet Deutsche-Welle noted that the trigger for the first class of pandemic bonds, valued at $225 million, would normally have already been met due to the criterion of more than 2,500 deaths in a “developing country.” However, WHO has said this does not meet said criterion because it does not consider China to be a developing country, even though
the World Bank’s own criteria do consider China to be a developing country.'
'For the second and riskier category of pandemic bonds, those bonds are triggered when the disease in question crosses an international border and causes more than 20 deaths in the second country. At the time of publication of this article, Iran
has recorded at least 50 deaths, which should have triggered this second category of pandemic bonds, valued at $95 million. Yet, WHO yet to comment on how this criterion for the second category bonds has been met.'
Interesting to see how this one will play out.
www.gocomics.com
.
