Search - covid 19

Hami Nepal used Discord app to mobilize protestsSudan Gurung and team propose cabinet changes, focus on youth involvementA former DJ and his obscure Nepalese non-profit used a social media app popular with video gamers to drive massive protests and become the unlikely power brokers in installing the country's new interim leadership.Sudan Gurung, the 36-year-old founder of Hami Nepal (We are Nepal), used the Discord messaging app and Instagram to mobilise massive demonstrations that forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli to resign, in the deadliest political crisis to hit the Himalayan nation in decades, a dozen people involved in the demonstrations said. The group used VPNs to access banned platforms and issued calls to action that reached tens of thousands of young people, they added. Representatives for Oli could not be contacted for comment."I was invited to join a group on Discord where there were about 400 members. It asked us to join the protest march a few kilometres from the parliament," 18-year-old student Karan Kulung Rai, who is not part of the group, told Reuters.Hami Nepal's early social media posts on Discord became so influential that they were referenced on national television.As protests grew violent, the group also identified messages it termed "fake news" and shared hospital phone numbers.Hami Nepal members, who asked not to be identified as they had used proxy names online for security reasons, said Gurung and the group's other leaders have since become central to high-stakes decisions, including the appointment of the new interim leadership till elections are held on March 5. They have already convinced the country's president and army chief to appoint former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, known for her tough stance against corruption, as Nepal's first woman prime minister in an interim capacity, three members of the group said."I will make sure that the power lies with the people and bring every corrupt politician to justice," Gurung said in his first press conference since the protest on Thursday. On Sunday, Gurung and his team were in meetings to decide key cabinet positions and were proposing that some government officials appointed by the previous administration be removed, members of Hami Nepal said."Meetings are ongoing between Karki and members of the group. We will finalise the cabinet soon," one of the members said. Gurung and Karki did not immediately respond to questions sent to their mobile phones.The "process is being carefully carried out, so that it consists of skilled and capable youth," Hami Nepal said on Instagram.Monday's protest by young adults loosely categorised as a "Gen Z" movement, as most participants were in their 20s, turned deadly within hours and rapidly brought down the government. The protests were directed at perceived government corruption and took off following a ban on multiple social media platforms - a directive that was reversed. Protesters clashed with authorities on the streets, leaving at least 72 dead and over 1,300 injured.Gurung, who is older than the Gen Z age bracket, and his team have vowed not to take up any cabinet positions but want to be part of the future decision-making."We don't want to be politicians. Sudan Gurung was only helping the 'Gen Z' group and we are only the voice of the nation and not interested in taking leadership positions," said Ronesh Pradhan, a 26-year-old volunteer for the group. Gurung, who was a DJ before he founded Hami Nepal, organised civic relief when the worst earthquake in Nepal's history killed over 9,000 people in 2015, and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Team members running the Instagram account, whose followers have swelled to over 160,000, and Discord posts alongside Gurung include 24-year-old cafe owner Ojaswi Raj Thapa and law graduate Rehan Raj Dangal.Thapa, who quickly emerged as a vocal protest movement leader, told Reuters in an interview that the judiciary was not independent and ensuring its freedom was a key priority once the interim government was put in place."We may need some changes to the constitution but we don't want to dissolve the constitution," he said on Thursday.

Beatrice Chebet won the 10,000m world title while the cream of sprinting delighted a sellout 55,000 crowd at the world championships Saturday – a stark contrast to the empty stadium at the Covid-affected Tokyo Games in 2021.Chebet, 25, added the world title to her Olympic crown in Paris last year where the Kenyan also won the 5,000m. “I wanted that gold medal so much,” she said. “I have never won a gold at the world championships so I was sure I had to get it.”That was one of several titles on offer, giving a gentle lead-in to the finals of the men’s and women’s blue riband event, the 100m, Sunday.Ryan Crouser proved he has no equal in the shot put as despite missing the outdoor season through injury he became the second man – after Werner Guenthoer over 30 years ago – to be crowned world outdoor champion on three successive occasions. “This is my first time throwing hard since September last year, (so) this one is the one I am most proud of,” said Crouser.There was also gold for the American 4x400m mixed relay team, avenging their defeat by the Netherlands in last year’s Olympic final. The Dutch, anchored by 400m hurdles favourite Femke Bol, had to be satisfied with silver.All the favourites wasted little energy in qualifying for Sunday’s men’s 100m semi-finals. Olympic champion Noah Lyles and the Jamaican who lost out to him by the slimmest of margins at the Paris Olympics, Kishane Thompson, look in prime form despite the championships coming at the end of the season.Lyles did not enjoy his previous, crowdless experience in Tokyo but he is a different person four years later and put on a show for his audience. “As you know, it was a bit echoing back then and this time there is all the atmosphere, whistles and children cheering for me,” he said. “It really feels good to be back. This is the best form I have ever been in my life. I am bringing special things here.”Olympic 200m champion Letsile Tebogo and two-time Olympic 200m silver medallist Kenny Bednarek also impressed. Bednarek, who pushed Lyles in the back and accused him of showing disrespect at the US trials, will hope he remembers every bit of kit Sunday having left his spikes in the United States. “I am just a clumsy dude,” he said.Women’s 100m Olympic champion Julien Alfred laid down the law in her heat, storming out of the blocks and the Saint Lucia star cantered over the line in 10.93sec. Defending world champion Sha’Carri Richardson had a far stronger heat, including two-time 200m world champion Shericka Jackson, but neither had to over-exert themselves as they eased into the semi-finals.Jackson’s legendary compatriot Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is also through but remains an outsider to add to her ten world golds and make it a fairytale farewell. On form alone, Alfred’s biggest threat is American champion Melissa Jefferson-Wooden. Third behind Alfred in last year’s Olympic final, the 24-year-old said she could cope with a change in expectations from a minor medal prospect to one of the title favourites. “I already hold myself to a really high standard and expectations, so the pressures of the outside world, I really don’’t feel them,” she said. “I try to make sure I go out there and focus on Melissa, focus on what I can do and run my races to the best of my ability.”Edmund Serem is just 17 but the Kenyan showed he is a real title prospect. He kept his head after an early mistake in the 3,000m steeplechase and went on to win his heat –even having the time to join his hands together and hold them in front of his face as he crossed the line. However, he will have to go some to beat two-time defending champion Sofiane El Bakkali – Morocco’s two-time Olympic gold medallist coasted through his heat.

Qatar National Bank (QNB) predicted that upcoming US Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions could lead to a mild stagflation scenario, where growth slows while inflation remains above target. In its weekly report, QNB noted that the current US administration has clearly focused on monetary policy and has urged the Federal Reserve to deliver large rate cuts and adopt a more flexible stance. The report explained that monetary policy decisions are normally based on forecasts of key macroeconomic variables and a careful analysis of how interest-rate changes affect economic activity and prices, with the Federal Open Market Committee typically carrying out this process through extensive technical deliberations free from political pressure. The bank observed that new economic trends has unsettled financial markets, causing significant volatility as investors try to determine the appropriate level of interest rates for pricing assets in the new macroeconomic environment. US interest rates and Treasury yields were said to provide important information on macroeconomic expectations, particularly through the real yield curve (the gap between yields on 10-year and 2-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities). A wider gap indicates expectations of weaker short-term growth relative to the long term. This gap has widened in 2025 even though long-term real yields have remained stable, suggesting that longer-term growth expectations have not changed while near-term activity is expected to weaken. Recent US labor-market data were highlighted as evidence of this slowdown, showing slower job creation and a gradual rise in unemployment in recent months. Consensus forecasts for real GDP growth have also been revised downward, with expectations for 2025 and 2026 reduced by about 0.5 percentage points to 1.5% and 1.7% respectively, levels approaching the weakest annual growth since the post-COVID recession. The report stressed that real interest rates remain highly restrictive. With the federal funds rate upper bound at 4.5% and inflation at roughly 2.7%, the real rate is close to 1.8%, well above the estimated neutral rate of roughly 0.5-1.0 percentage points. QNB argued that current rates are overly tight and need adjustment to avoid a sharp growth slowdown. Short-term Treasury yields were described as closely tracking market expectations for the Fed's policy path. The two-year Treasury yield has fallen about 60 basis points this year (from a January peak of 4.40% to roughly 3.80%) signaling expectations of a substantial rate-cutting cycle. Markets now anticipate two 25-basis-point cuts by the end of 2025, followed by additional reductions through 2026, which would bring the policy rate down to around 3% by the end of that year. QNB concluded that these indicators point to a moderate stagflationary environment, with inflation staying above the Fed's 2% target even as growth weakens. Members of the Federal Open Market Committee were reported to have acknowledged a shift in the balance of risks toward slower growth, with markets expecting a policy-easing cycle that lowers the federal funds rate to roughly 3% by the end of 2026.

France’s government has now fallen after losing a parliamentary confidence vote brought by Prime Minister François Bayrou in a failed attempt to force the National Assembly to reckon with the country’s fiscal troubles. By ousting Bayrou’s team, the opposition – comprising both the left and the right – appeared to deny the need for fiscal adjustment.France’s fiscal position is deeply unbalanced. Last year, the country’s total deficit reached €169.6bn ($200bn), or 5.8% of GDP. With public debt at 113% of GDP, the need for adjustment truly is real.On the other hand, France is also the only major OECD country to have enacted a deep structural reform – specifically, far-reaching changes to its pension system – since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. And while France emerged from the last decade in a weaker fiscal position, the recent ballooning of its national debt fits within a broad global trend, which has also enveloped the US and Germany as well.And yet, two successive governments have chosen to portray France’s fiscal position largely in near-catastrophic terms. Finance Minister Éric Lombard recently went so far as to suggest that France might require an International Monetary Fund bailout, though he later retracted his statement.This goal was to convince voters to support the government’s proposed budget, which would significantly reduce public spending in 2026. It would suspend the indexation of most public expenditures (including pensions) to inflation and eliminate two public holidays. It was a good fiscal-consolidation package, neither especially regressive nor progressive, but it has proved highly controversial.But overdramatising the situation was a tactical mistake. It rarely works in democratic societies. On the contrary, it tends to breed mistrust, fatigue, and defiance. Citizens want to show they have choices. They stage protests, vote against incumbents, or disengage from politics.This dynamic is seen at work when it comes to climate policy. Instead of presenting the merits and benefits of fighting global warming, governments and international organisations often stress dire warnings of impending catastrophe. But forcing interventions onto citizens, especially those viewed as costly or unfair, based on a Hobson’s choice – “It is this or climate doom” – has often triggered backlashes, including in France, where the “yellow vest” protest movement emerged in 2018 in response to fuel-tax hikes.The same logic applies to fiscal policy. Debt and climate are both issues that require long-term vision and a sense of intergenerational justice. Yet, time and again, policymakers have sought to bypass this complexity and simply scare people by telling them they stand on the edge of an abyss.It is naive to believe that populations can be driven into constructive action by fear. Eighteen years ago, the prime minister at the time proclaimed that France was bankrupt. Since then, the debt has doubled. Eminent personalities and official bodies and agencies periodically issue dramatic warnings, which are broadly ignored.When populist movements in Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela, have used external debt crises as rallying cries against mainstream politics, the results have often been destabilising.While ordinary citizens largely ignore their government’s gloomy narratives, financial markets have taken note. The yield on 30-yearFrench government bonds has reached its highest level since 2011, and the yield on ten-year bonds is at Italian levels. This should not be surprising, given the importance of perceptions in assessing financial risk. When a government insists that its national debt is unsustainable, investors and rating agencies are inclined to believe it.France does need strong and rapid fiscal adjustment. But the reasons why have yet to be explained to the French people. Ministers describe in arithmetical terms the sad reality that debt service now consumes a larger share of the budget than education. But the sad fact is that few voters pay attention.

The world desperately needs a good guy to believe in. There is only one candidate for the job: Europe. No other country or region is free, prosperous, endowed with the right values – and large enough to be an example to the world.But it is not enough for good guys to be good. They also must be strong and determined. And that, I am afraid, is where Europe falls short. Right now, Europe looks anything but strong. It looks wimpy.First came the so-called trade deal with the US. As my London School of Economics colleague Luis Garicano wrote, it was “not a deal, but a surrender.” Europe made a number of concessions, including acceptance of 15% tariffs on its key exports, in exchange for nothing.Then came the August 18 gathering of European leaders in the White House. If there is one art President Donald Trump practices to perfection, it is scene-setting. He sat in his big reclining chair, behind his big desk, while the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Finland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, plus the president of the European Commission and the secretary-general of Nato, cowered on the other side like supplicants hoping to land a job on his old reality TV show The Apprentice. No picture could better convey the stark asymmetry in gall – and in real power.But there is no reason why Europe is condemned to genuflect before a US president. Europe has a much larger population than the US, and the combined GDP of the European Union, the UK, and other rich non-EU countries, like Norway and Switzerland, comes close.The truth is that Europe’s weakness reflects its own mistakes. Start with the biggest of them all: security. Garicano puts it well: “You cannot win a trade war against the army that protects you.” Sixty years ago, French President Charles de Gaulle’s fixation on an independent European defence capability looked like Gallic obstinacy. Today, it looks visionary. Russia’s aggression has revealed that Europe is exposed without US security guarantees – which cannot be relied upon as long as Trump is president.Europe is not doing enough to address its security deficit. Granted, defence spending has been rising. Of 28 European Nato members, 20 spent more than 2% of GDP on defence in 2024 – an increase of 0.6 percentage points in just two years. But that is still a far cry from the 3.4% the US spends, and Poland’s 4.7% projected for 2025.Europe’s defence procurement is also maddeningly fragmented, with each country trying to create jobs by buying weapons locally. The result is inefficiency and delays. The proposed European Defence Mechanism, which would include Britain and serve as a joint procurement agency, is a much better way forward, as is the idea (at least for the short run) of buying from the US the weapons Ukraine and Eastern Europe need to be safe.All of which leads to the question of how Europe can pay for its rearmament. The EU has not completed either a capital-markets union (to allow companies to borrow more cheaply across the continent) nor a banking union (to break the “doom loop” between banks and their national governments). Nor has it permanently created a class of bonds issued jointly by the EU on behalf of all its members. A pile of EU debt was issued under emergency powers during the Covid-19 pandemic, but it is not clear that this debt will be renewed when it matures, much less serve as the foundation for something bigger and more lasting.That is a pity, because a joint eurobond would bring huge benefits to Europe. Not only does it make perfect economic sense to finance the continent’s joint defence by issuing joint debt obligations. Eurobonds would also help turn the euro into a global safe asset, and the time is ripe for that change, too.After all, thanks to Trump’s antics, the dollar is looking more and more like an emerging-market currency, and investors everywhere are searching for an alternative. From an investor’s point of view, bonds backed by the EU, and not subject to the political and economic ups and downs of individual countries, would be safer and more liquid. So, they would carry a lower interest rate, allowing Europe to save plenty of money.But a global euro would also likely be a stronger euro, and that causes politicians from export-oriented economies like Germany and The Netherlands to hesitate. But maybe a stronger euro would be the perfect excuse to complete the other gargantuan unfinished task: the single market.The EU is supposed to be a fully unified market for trade in all goods and services, but the truth is that many barriers remain. For every €100 of value added in EU countries, only €20 of goods flow back and forth between them. For the US, the equivalent figure is $45 out of every $100. This costly fragmentation was a main theme of the weighty Draghi report on EU competitiveness, released in September 2024 – and now gathering dust on a shelf in Brussels.Europe’s external wimpiness is the result of its internal wimpiness. For all of Europe’s lofty claims to enlightenment, the continent’s politics remain as petty and short-sighted as those of any local town hall. When former German Chancellor Angela Merkel vowed in 2012 that there would be no eurobond “as long as I live,” she was not practicing far-sighted statesmanship, but simply trying to reassure local nativists.And when, more recently, liberal-internationalist French President Emmanuel Macron did everything in his power to block the EU-Mercosur trade deal, he was pandering to domestic farmers. If that is the leadership Europe gets from its most prominent figures, what can Europeans expect from the continent’s lesser politicians?With Trump threatening from one side, and Putin from the other, Europeans can no longer afford their leaders’ passivity. The world’s only remaining good guy needs to step up. Democrats everywhere are waiting. — Project SyndicateAndrés Velasco, a former finance minister of Chile, is Dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Parallel to this month’s United Nations General Assembly in New York, another critical summit will take place: the Science Summit at UNGA80. The Summit – which aims to highlight “the pivotal role of science in addressing societal challenges” – will provide a platform for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to demand a renewed recognition of scientific research as a pillar of resilience and sovereignty.For decades, the conventional wisdom has been that the fastest route to development lies in the adoption of foreign technologies, not independent innovation. Development institutions and policymakers have treated basic science as a luxury that only advanced economies could afford. For LMICs, they argued, the cultivation of scientific capacity – a slow and expensive process – would consume resources that should be allocated to pressing needs like poverty reduction, food security, and infrastructure; they are thus better off importing technologies and solutions from abroad.But this logic has been upended in recent years. A series of developments – including the Covid-19 pandemic, intensifying climate shocks, and proliferating barriers to trade and technology transfers – has exposed the risks of dependence on imported science. It is now clear that if LMICs are to gain control over their own development agendas, respond effectively to crises, and adapt global knowledge to local realities, they must build their own dynamic research ecosystems.This is not a detour on the path to development or an inconvenient necessity born of external challenges. Far from distracting from urgent needs, investment in basic science can enable countries to meet those needs, by giving rise to new industries, creating high-quality jobs, strengthening public services, and attracting the private capital needed to sustain growth and innovation.Calls for LMICs to raise gross expenditure on research and development toward the widely used 1%-of-GDP benchmark have rightly been growing louder. But not all investments are created equal. In a study at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, my team and I mapped a new dataset, spanning 129 countries, according to funding, talent, institutions, and research output. Our central finding is that total spending matters much less than the manner and context in which it is deployed.When paired with strong institutions, capable research agencies, and policies that attract and circulate talent, even modest R&D budgets can yield outsize returns. An analysis showed that some countries achieve several times the global median research impact (H-index) per dollar of R&D spending, while others fall short. The lesson for LMICs is especially important: countries under budget pressures cannot afford to spend more on poorly aligned systems.LMICs have proven their capacity for innovation, especially in the health sector. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Senegal’s Pasteur Institute developed and deployed rapid diagnostic kits within weeks, and Ugandan scientists created mobile EpiTent hospitals tailored to the local public-health system. Using its genome-sequencing capabilities, South Africa identified new virus variants early, providing critical data to the world. These achievements were the product of deliberate, long-term investments in domestic capacity that paid off when global supply chains and aid channels faltered.International partners have a critical role to play in supporting scientific sovereignty in developing economies, including by co-investing in LMIC-based universities, laboratories, and research councils. As LMICs’ scientific capacities progress, so will their ability to collaborate as equals with international researchers and institutions; contribute solutions to shared problems, from pandemic preparedness to food security; and ensure that global research agendas reflect the needs and priorities of all countries, not just the wealthiest.At a time of shrinking global aid budgets and faltering multilateralism, LMICs cannot count on the international community to meet their development needs. But far from a roadblock to progress, this should serve as a catalyst for transformation. By investing in their own institutions and talent, developing-country governments can transform vulnerability into resilience, and dependence into agency.At the UNGA, world leaders will discuss wars, climate change, and economic uncertainty. But science must also be on the agenda. Only by nurturing robust scientific ecosystems can we ensure that LMICs are prepared to meet known and unknown challenges. — Project Syndicate

Boeing Co delivered 57 commercial aircraft in August, its best performance for the month since 2018, in the latest sign of steadying factory operations as the US planemaker targets faster production rates.The tally, which included 43 of Boeing’s 737 family of jets, is the second-highest of the year and marks an uptick from July, according to data posted Tuesday on the company’s website. August’s results underscore Boeing’s recent improvements in stabilising its factories as the manufacturer prepares to ask regulators for permission to return output of the best-selling jet to pre-Covid levels.Gross orders for Boeing totalled 26 during the month against two cancellations. The company recorded 83 net orders, including those added to its backlog under a US accounting provision for at-risk deals. For the year, the US planemaker has landed 725 gross orders against 600 for Toulouse, France-based Airbus SE.Boeing has started to narrow an output gap with market leader Airbus that’s stood since the US manufacturer fell into a series of crises starting with the first of two fatal 737 Max crashes in late 2018. Through August, Boeing has delivered 385 jets this year to 434 for its European rival, which handed over 61 aircraft for the month.Since the beginning of 2024, Boeing’s output deficit to Airbus has narrowed by more than half, based on the average of trailing six-month deliveries, according to Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu.Jefferies estimates of 6-month average gap in Boeing-Airbus deliveries.Boeing is sharing with US regulators a series of measures of the health of its production system ahead of a formal request to speed its 737 assembly lines to a pace of 42 jets per month, from the current cap of 38.The company has told airline customers it’s optimistic it will be able to raise rates by October, Ryanair Holdings Plc Chief Executive Officer Michael O’Leary told reporters on August 27.

Crude prices have fallen 12% this year, pressured by increased output from Opec+ countries and elsewhere, and as US President Donald Trump’s trade war weighs on demand. Yet the market has overall proven surprisingly resilient to the alliance’s strategy shift, giving the oil alliance added confidence to return even more barrels. Opec+ agreed to a new round of production increases from next month last Sunday, as the group extends a policy shift towards higher volumes after years of defending prices. In a meeting that lasted 11 minutes, key alliance members approved adding about 137,000 barrels a day from October during a video call as they accelerates the unwinding of its next tier of supply cuts. The group said in a statement it will return all or part of 1.65mn a day, without giving a period or increments, depending on market conditions. The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) and its partners or Opec+ stunned oil markets in recent months by reviving 2.2mn barrels of halted production a year ahead of schedule in a bid to reclaim market share, even despite widespread expectations of an approaching supply glut. The group hopes that a further increase in sales volumes will offset any hit to revenues from lower prices, one delegate said, signalling a reversal of the strategy that Opec+ has espoused since its creation almost a decade ago. However, the actual volume is likely to be lower than announced, as some members of the group face pressure to compensate for earlier oversupply and forgo their share of production hikes, while several countries lack spare capacity. The decision is likely to put a renewed spotlight on the unused production levels available in different Opec+ members, as countries that can’t pump more won’t fully benefit from the increased quotas, while they face the added pressure of lower prices. The group’s decision comes against the backdrop of mounting warnings that the oil market is headed for a significant oversupply as the summer driving season ends in the northern hemisphere. The International Energy Agency in Paris forecasts a record supply glut next year amid faltering consumption in China, and swelling output across the Americas — from the US and Canada to Brazil and Guyana. In the second quarter, global oil stockpiles increased by the most since the third three months of 2020, when the global economy was still being ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Over that period, stockpiles in the developed world climbed by 60,000 barrels a day, while expanding by more than 1mn barrels a day everywhere else. Goldman Sachs Group predicts Brent may slump to the low $50s in 2026. For global oil markets in the longer term, the Opec+ move serves to erode a longstanding safety net of idle production that could be brought back to cushion unforeseen supply shocks. Granted, there are some bullish factors that could provide some support to oil in the coming months. Winter heating needs will provide periodic boosts to demand, and the possibility of lower interest rates should bolster the prices of commodities including crude and diesel. But it’s the oil glut — which the IEA says will balloon to a record next year — that is in focus now. There are, of course, gainers and losers from the decline in global crude prices. But cheaper oil may not translate into a proportional growth boost for global economy as much as it’s generally hoped for. Longer term, oil companies say global energy future envisages rising demand and population growth, making oil an important fuel for decades to come. Despite the emergence of renewables, global energy security depends mainly on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The world is in need of a stable oil market with price equilibrium.

As the oil market moves closer to a long-anticipated glut, traders are closely watching buying from China to see if it will absorb an excess that the world’s crude producing nations are set to pump.Earlier this year, China piled into the crude market to snap up millions of barrels, including some that went into its strategic storage. The buildup has since slowed down as the nation’s domestic demand picked up, but with expectations that Beijing will continue to amass barrels, its next steps are seen as critical.With China’s vast network of oil tank farms still a little over 50% full, according to OilX data, traders say another spree would limit the damage from a long-anticipated glut in other parts of the globe. That’s significant because if China’s buying is elevated, it will prevent a buildup of supply in a narrow set of hubs in Midwestern America and Northwest Europe, limiting how far prices can fall.“The key question is where stockbuilds will turn up,” HSBC Holdings Plc analysts including Kim Fustier wrote this week. “If China continues to absorb excess oil volumes via its strategic reserves, as it did in in the second quarter, stockbuilds in the OECD could be muted.”The global market’s capacity to absorb barrels will be among talking points when OPEC+ nations meet to discuss supply on Sunday. Saudi Arabia wants the group to accelerate the return of another tranche of halted output adding to concerns about a surplus that would depress prices but all options are on the table.About 10% of the nation’s crude stockpiling has been directed to its strategic petroleum reserves, according to Kayrros analyst Antoine Halff. There have also been additions to the country’s refining capacity, such as CNOOC Ltd’s Daxie plant, and the addition of new tank space.It’s also possible that Beijing wants to hold more barrels in storage given the heightened levels of geopolitical risks over the last few years, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies wrote in a note.While China’s flagship crude futures contract was flashing a softer market over recent weeks, the world’s two main benchmark’s continued to suggest relatively tight supplies.That’s because inventory builds so far this year have avoided western hubs. In Cushing, Oklahoma, the tank farm of about 15 storage terminals that underpins the West Texas Intermediate futures contract, inventories have been repeatedly near multi-year seasonal lows this year.The International Energy Agency says that in the second quarter global oil stockpiles increased by the most since the third three months of 2020, when the global economy was still being ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic. Over that period, stockpiles in the developed world climbed by 60,000 barrels a day, while expanding by more than 1mn barrels a day everywhere else.It’s still possible that prices will need to fall from current levels for China buy in a big way, though, according to Frederic Lasserre, head of research at Gunvor Group.“The last solver that everybody is talking about is China,” he said. “Not for runs, but because we’ve seen a recent trend of them being willing to build up crude barrels. But if you expect China to go back to stockpiling 1mn barrels a day, you need a big price drop to incentivise it.”Both inside and outside of China there’s plenty of space to store unwanted oil.Bank of America Corp wrote last month that there’s about a billion barrels of empty tank capacity available across the globe to fill with inventories, which could mean that markets avoid falling into a heavily bearish structure.There are signs that the surge in production is starting to come, though. Brazil’s output approached 4mn barrels a day for the first time over the summer, and a new field is due to start in the country before the end of the year. Guyana has moved from producing nothing to almost 1mn barrels a day and output in Canada’s oil heartland of Alberta hit a record in July.At the same time, despite concerns about a decline in US output, the Energy Information Administration has consistently revised oil supply estimates higher over the last few months.What traders are waiting for now, is for those increases to appear at key storage hubs.“When we look at OECD inventories we’re still at a relatively low level,” Nadia Martin Wiggen, a director at Svelland Capital, said in a Bloomberg TV interview. “Yes, there is this supply glut coming according to expectations, but we need to see that materialising.”

The global health landscape is marked by fundamental contradictions. Scientific innovation is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, yet many of the world’s most urgent health needs remain unmet. New drugs, diagnostics, and therapies are constantly being developed, but they remain largely inaccessible to the countries and communities that need them most. This is a crisis of equity, leadership, and imagination, and addressing it demands nothing less than an overhaul of the dominant model of medical research.As matters stand, medical-research agendas and standards are largely dictated by funders in the Global North. Breakthroughs often depend on data from lower-income countries – which bear the brunt of the global disease burden – but credit for them is typically awarded to elite Western institutions.But researchers, clinicians, and institutions in the Global South possess deep firsthand knowledge of the diseases afflicting local populations. They know which diagnostics and treatments can work in low-resource settings, and how to navigate local health systems. When they lack the opportunity to bring their expertise and insight to bear in setting research priorities or guiding research and development strategies, outcomes suffer.Consider diagnostics, which is essential for disease management and surveillance. Global health experts often advocate expanding access to molecular diagnostics, which use in vitro techniques to analyse markers in the genome and proteome. But these approaches are costly and impractical in resource-limited settings, especially during disease outbreaks.Global medical research and development must be reoriented toward equity and impact. This means not just giving countries a seat at the table, but letting them lead the research that primarily affects them. One of the most powerful levers for such a transformation is the public-private partnership (PPP) model, including not-for-profit product-development partnerships (PDPs) to advance the delivery of health products for poverty-related and neglected diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis.Over the past two decades, PDPs have played a crucial role in improving global health, by bringing together governments, philanthropies, industry, academia, and NGOs to tackle diseases for which there were no market incentives to develop solutions. Organisations like the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, and the Medicines for Malaria Venture have proven that collaborative, public-interest-driven models can fill gaps left by the for-profit sector.But this model appears to have lost its way. Nowadays, PDPs often appear to be entwined with large multinational companies, disconnected from countries’ health priorities and focused on the needs and demands of the Global North, with many using development pipelines and regulatory approaches designed for North American or European markets.Meanwhile, ballooning overhead costs are being met with shrinking funding. It does not help that many PDPs remain headquartered in expensive Western cities like Geneva or London, with staffing that does not reflect the communities being served. To remain relevant, PDPs must be led by the countries they serve and headquartered in the Global South, with both cost structures and regulatory pathways being adapted to local realities.Fortunately, such models are already emerging. In Malaysia, the International Affordable Diagnostics and Therapeutics Alliance (IA-DATA), a locally driven initiative, recently began clinical trials on a repurposed antimalarial drug called artesunate for use against cervical pre-cancer and colorectal cancer, which represent a significant disease burden in developing countries. By combining existing medicines with regional clinical expertise, IA-DATA bypassed the need for expensive new chemical entities, thereby accelerating progress.IA-DATA and its platform for global collaboration, the South-South Diagnostic Alliance (SSDxA), are also seeking to democratise access to diagnostics – the often-neglected sibling of therapeutics – by decentralising research and development. Already, SSDxA (one of the authors is Director) is connecting scientists, manufacturers, and regulators from across Malaysia, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam.The SSDxA’s recent analysis of dengue diagnostics revealed that, while molecular assays can be useful, lateral flow tests are more accessible and affordable in affected regions. As developing-country researchers have often pointed out, these rapid tests, which were critical in managing the Covid-19 pandemic, offer a viable and scalable solution in low-resource settings.The role of regulators must not be underestimated. Malaysia’s National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency was among the first in the world to approve the use of ravidasvir, a hepatitis C drug developed through South-South co-operation. Instead of waiting for endorsement from Western regulatory authorities, Malaysia worked with partners from the Global South to approve this low-cost treatment. The drug has since been added into the World Health Organisation’s list of essential medicines.Many countries in the Global South, including Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Jordan, and South Africa, have what it takes to lead this transformation in medical research, including robust public-health systems, internationally accredited regulatory bodies, political will, and cost advantages. But they will need to introduce policy reforms that facilitate the registration and operation of organisations with a regional or global nonprofit mandate – not least so that they can attract sufficient foreign investment, including from the Global North.A global rebalancing of medical research does not mean excluding Western partners, which still have a vital role to play, directing not only resources, but also expertise toward locally driven R&D agendas. This vision aligns with the Yamoussoukro Consensus on South-South Co-operation, adopted by the G77 in 2008: While North-South co-operation remains essential, developing countries must set their own priorities for collaboration and evaluate progress on their own terms.Empowering countries to lead medical research is not charity; it is a strategic necessity. Beyond righting historical inequities, it would unlock the next frontier of equitable and effective healthcare for all. – Project SyndicateSanjeev Krishna is Professor Emeritus of Molecular Parasitology and Medicine at City St George’s University of London and a visiting professor at the Universiti Malaya Affordable Diagnostics and Therapeutics.Jean-Michel Piedagnel is Director of the South-South Diagnostic Alliance (SSDxA).

US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr said Thursday that firing a top government scientist was "absolutely necessary" as he faced blistering criticism from Democrats urging him to resign over his steps to curb vaccines.The Senate hearing, marked by sharp exchanges that often erupted into shouting matches, came days after the ouster of Sue Monarez, the former director of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Her dismissal, accompanied by several high-level resignations and hundreds of earlier layoffs, has plunged the nation's premier public health agency into turmoil.In his opening remarks, Kennedy tore into the CDC's actions during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, accusing the agency of failing "miserably" with "disastrous and nonsensical" policies including masking guidance, social distancing and school closures.Kennedy said that the CDC, during the pandemic, had lied to Americans, pointing to recommendations on mask wearing, vaccine boosters and social distancing and statements that the vaccine would prevent transmission."I need to fire some of those people and make sure this doesn't happen again," he said."We need bold, competent and creative new leadership at CDC, people able and willing to chart a new course," he said, touting the health department's new focus on chronic disease and promoting prevention.Monarez, the CDC director whom Kennedy previously endorsed, accused the secretary of a "deliberate effort to weaken America's public-health system and vaccine protections" in a *Wall Street Journal op-ed Thursday.Kennedy's explanation for her firing – as he told Senator Elizabeth Warren – was simply: "I asked her, 'Are you a trustworthy person?' And she said, 'No.'"Once a respected environmental lawyer, Kennedy emerged in the mid-2000s as a leading anti-vaccine activist, spending two decades spreading voluminous misinformation before being tapped by President Donald Trump as health secretary in his second administration.Since taking office, he has restricted Covid-19 shots to narrower groups, cut off federal research grants for the mRNA technology credited with saving millions of lives, and redirected funding toward research on debunked claims linking vaccines to autism.Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee leading the hearing, set the tone by demanding Kennedy be sworn in under oath – accusing him of lying in prior written testimony when he pledged not to limit vaccine access."It is in the country's best interest that Robert Kennedy step down, and if he doesn't, Donald Trump should fire him before more people are hurt," Wyden thundered.However, Republican committee chairman Mike Crapo shot down the request, praising Kennedy's focus on chronic diseases such as obesity.The exchanges only grew more ill-tempered.Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell branded Kennedy a "charlatan" over his attacks on mRNA research, while Kennedy accused Senator Maggie Hassan of "crazy talk" and "making things up to scare people" when she said that parents were already struggling to get Covid-19 vaccines for their children.Vaccines have become the flashpoint in an ever-deepening partisan battle.Conservative-leaning Florida on Wednesday announced that it would end all immunisation requirements, including at schools, while a West Coast alliance of California, Washington and Oregon announced they would make their own vaccine recommendation body to counter Kennedy's influence at the national level.Republicans mostly closed ranks around Kennedy, though there was some notable dissent.Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician whose support was key to Kennedy's confirmation, criticised his cancellation of mRNA grants.He was joined by fellow Republican doctor Senator John Barrasso and Senator Thom Tillis.Cassidy pressed Kennedy on whether Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, the public-private partnership that sped Covid-19 vaccines to market.Kennedy agreed that Trump should have received the prize but in nearly the same breath, praised hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, drugs championed by conspiracy theorists that have been proven ineffective against Covid-19.

Long-dated bonds are facing renewed selling pressure, ramping up borrowing costs around the world and creating a headache for investors and policymakers.Yields on 30-year US Treasuries were around 5% in early September, a level last reached in July. Those on Japan’s 20-year notes climbed to their highest since 1999, while yields on 30-year UK gilts jumped to levels last recorded in 1998. French and Australian government bonds are among the others experiencing a selloff too.The rising yields signal investors are demanding extra compensation for holding government debt in the face of spiralling budget deficits and sticky inflation. The mounting worry is that politicians lack the ambition, or even the ability, to rein in their countries’ debt, while central banks may struggle to combat the mix of sustained price pressures and ebbing economic growth.What’s been happening with long-dated bonds?Traders usually buy and sell bonds based on the relative appeal of their fixed coupon payments. The longer there is until a bond “matures,” the more that can go wrong in the interim. Long-term bonds with a duration of between 10 and 100 years tend to offer higher interest rates than shorter-term treasury bills that are repaid in less than a year, to compensate buyers for the additional risk.When a country’s economic outlook worsens, bond yields typically fall. This is because a weaker economy encourages central banks to shift their focus from combating inflation to stimulating economic activity. That means a bias toward lowering benchmark interest rates, boosting the relative appeal of bonds versus cash in the bank.But lately, yields for long bonds have been rising. In the US, that’s in part because the economy has slowed, not collapsed, and inflation has remained stronger than forecast.Why are there concerns about debt and deficits?Governments across the world loaded up on cheap debt after the 2008 global financial crisis, then borrowed even more to cope with Covid-19 lockdowns and accompanying recessions. Global debt reached a record $324tn in the first quarter of 2025, driven by China, France and Germany, according to the Institute of International Finance.A surge in inflation since the pandemic made that scale of borrowing harder to sustain. Major central banks raised interest rates and wound down their bond-buying programs, known as quantitative easing, which were designed to lower borrowing costs. Some central banks are now even actively selling the debt they accumulated via quantitative easing back into the market, adding further upside pressure to yields.The concern is that if bond yields stay high and governments fail to get their fiscal houses in order, the cost of servicing some of that debt will just keep climbing.In the US, the cost of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-and-spending law is a further worry for bond investors. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act could add $3.4tn to the US deficit over the next decade not accounting for dynamic effects such as the potential growth impact according to the Congressional Budget Office, which provides nonpartisan analysis of US fiscal policy.Moody’s Ratings stripped the US of its last-remaining top credit score in May, citing fears that the ballooning national debt and deficit will damage the country’s standing as the preeminent destination for global capital.What’s been driving the recent bond selloff?As well as the lingering debt strains, politics have been a major factor.After criticising Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting interest rates more quickly, Trump’s move to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook has deepened concerns around the central bank’s independence. The worry is that Trump succeeds in replacing Cook and others with officials more inclined to lower borrowing costs regardless of inflation risks.A deluge of corporate debt sales isn’t helping either, as this can sometimes siphon demand from government bonds. Both companies and sovereign borrowers across the world sold at least $90bn in investment-grade debt in early September, as parts of global credit markets neared or toppled records in one of the busiest weeks this year.September is also a traditionally bad month for longer-dated bonds as traders return from their summer break and readjust their portfolios. Government debt globally with maturities of over 10 years posted a median loss of 2% in September, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.The mix of risks is pushing the so-called “term premia” what investors demand for the uncertainty of holding bonds for longer ever higher.Why is a spike in long bond yields a problem?Investors want the bond market to be safe and boring, as these assets are what many of them hold to ensure a rock-solid stream of income to balance out the volatility of higher-risk, higher-reward investments such as technology stocks.When longer-term yields jump, they feed into mortgages, auto loans, credit card rates and other forms of debt, squeezing households and companies, and thus broader economies.And if long bond yields stay high for longer, it will gradually affect how much it costs a government to borrow money. That, and any accompanying deterioration in economies, could mean a “doom loop” in which debt levels climb even higher no matter what governments do with tax and spending.At times, rebellions in markets can even lead to the fall of governments as seen in the UK in 2022 after then-Prime Minister Liz Truss’s mini-budget, which included billions in unfunded commitments, roiled the bond market and led investors to drive up borrowing costs. In the early 1990s, so-called bond vigilantes were said to be powerful enough to force President Bill Clinton to rein in US debt.Where could things go from here?It’s not clear what a prolonged period of higher borrowing costs would mean for the mountain of long-term debt that governments binged on during 15 years of ultra-low interest rates. The upward shift in yields is already leading to new phenomena with unpredictable consequences.One example: Japan’s government bonds used to have such low yields that they acted as a kind of anchor by adding downward pressure on yields the world over. But they’ve shot higher in recent months, adding to the volatility in global bond prices and attracting foreign investors to Japanese debt in significant numbers. This could mean fewer buyers for debt sold by other nations.In the UK, the pressure is mounting on Chancellor Rachel Reeves to show she’s on top of the nation’s finances in an upcoming budget.In the US, there’s still concern that post-pandemic inflation isn’t yet under control and that Trump’s tariffs could add further inflationary pressure that exacerbates the bond yield spike. On the other hand, his trade war may also dampen economic activity, leading the Fed and other central banks to cut interest rates.Or both could happen, whereby there’s a surge in prices accompanied by falling economic output or zero growth a situation known as stagflation. This would add to the uncertainty over monetary policy, forcing the Fed to choose between supporting growth or suppressing inflation.Is this a taste of the future for long bond yields?Jamie Rush, Tom Orlik and Stephanie Flanders of Bloomberg Economics argue that politics and structural forces could potentially make 10-year Treasury yields of 4.5% the new normal.That comes as decades of decline in the “natural” interest rate the real interest rate that would prevail if the economy were operating at full employment with stable inflation have already ended, and partially reversed.“In the years ahead, the natural rate is set to edge higher still,” Rush, Orlik and Flanders wrote in a book, The Price of Money, published in August 2025. “If risks from debt, climate, geopolitics, and technology crystallise, it could rise quite a lot.”