Monday, June 22, 2020

COVID-19 in Iran: Fighting pandemic while facing US sanctions

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

COVID-19 in Iran: Fighting pandemic while facing US sanctions

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

Spraying chemicals to help keep the coronavirus under control, Iran

Spraying chemicals to help keep the coronavirus under control, Iran | Source: Mina Noei via Wikimedia

After backing out of the nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, the United States had toughened the sanctions on petrochemical trade and other vital sectors of Iranian economy. The Iranian government is claiming that those sanctions are heavily affecting their ability to act against COVID-19.

These sanctions forced the Iranian government to significantly change infocus from curbing the spread of infections to stabilizing the economy.  There have been some restrictions but no lockdown imposed on the movement of people as the lockdown would further weaken the economy. Also, a lot of pharmaceutical companies aren’t willing to trade with Iran because of the fear of getting caught up in secondary sanctions, even though the US governments deny any restriction of the same. 

All of this has led to a global outcry against the sanctions. The United Kingdom is pushing the US to ease the sanctions because they believe that the hospitals in Iran are badly overstretched. The UK tried to provide direct support to the country via WHO, but Iran refused any help that didn't come with the lifting of the sanctions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has urged the global community to rethink the existing sanctions on countries like Iran in the light of the current pandemic. The United States also offered humanitarian assistance to the state but was rejected by the Supreme Leader Khamanei, who declared the US as being charlatans and liars, and said that a wise man should not accept medicines from a country alleged of creating the virus. Russia, China and some other medical and rights groups have been urging the Trump administration to lift the sanctions. Over 21,000 lawyers and legal experts in Iran have signed a statement declaring that the US sanctions on Iran are anti-human. On the 26th of March, the US imposed even more sanctions, on more than 17 entities. The sanctions were announced a day after the family of a retired FBI agent claimed that the agent had died while in custody in Iran; two days after Ms. Bachelet made her statement on rethinking sanctions.

The crisis has touched most corners of the country, but it is most severely impacting the poor and working class. While it is older men who are dying in the highest numbers, the economic impact especially hurts women, who are most liable to lose work, and shoulder increased duties, looking after sick relatives and children staying home from school. Iranians’ purchasing power has plummeted in the past two years, as the mismanaged economy shuddered through Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the re-imposition of US sanctions. As Nahid, a women’s rights activist put it: “When people met this virus, their nutrition was already poorer, their immune systems were weakened, and many were already unable to afford health care.” Charities and private sector groups are joining together to raise funds for importing equipment and other medical supplies from China to set up facilities of COVID-19. However due to the sanctions it is becoming difficult to move money from Iran to any other country.

Arshi Tirkey, a Junior Fellow with Observer Research Foundation has put quite aptly: “It is true that political instability, corruption and economic mismanagement in Tehran have aggravated the issue; and likewise, this calls for governance reforms and financial transparency initiatives in Iran. But this is not the sole reason for the scarcity of medical equipment and the condition of health infrastructure in the country today. Sanctions remain a central impediment to improving Iran’s capacity to respond to the pandemic.”

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:43 PM

Sweden’s No Lockdown Policy: How That Changed The Outcome

Sweden has gone against conventional wisdom in its response to the COVID-19 situation. While the neighbouring countries like Denmark, Finland and Norway imposed strict lockdown on the places and services frequented by the public, Sweden has chosen to not do so at all during the initial phases when COVID-19 started taking the shape of a worldwide pandemic. The public places like Cafes, restaurants, gyms, malls, playgrounds, ski slopes and some of the schools were kept open all across Sweden.

The country’s fight against the threat of pandemic was handled exclusively by the Public Health Authority, with no political interference. They believed that a lockdown only serves to delay the virus, which is not necessary since the health services are equipped to deal with the cases. They also made it clear that achieving herd immunity is also not their aim. The public authorities in Sweden instead relied on the public's sense of responsibility, and appealed to them to do frequent hand washing, observe social distancing and keep people over 70 years old from going out.

The state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, made multiple statements about the state’s unusual approach, such as 1) “Once you get into a lockdown, it’s difficult to get out of it,”, “How do you reopen?  When?” 2) “There is no evidence whatsoever that doing more at this stage would make

any difference. It’s far better to introduce stringent measures at very specific intervals, and keep them running for as little time as possible” , 3) " As long as the healthcare system reasonably can cope with and give good care to the ones that need care, it's not clear that having the cases later in time is better”.

The assumption of public responsibility did not work for Sweden and there were people out on the streets, in cafes, restaurants and playgrounds. Not wearing a mask was the social norm instead of the reverse. The models for charting the virus spread given by the concerned authorities also turned out to be faulty forcing them to rescind it. Over 2000 Swedish researchers and doctors signed a petition which claimed that there was not enough testing,tracking or isolation in the country. They believed that the authority has clearly not planned their response and that the authority’s claim for herd immunity has very little scientific basis, even though the government has repeatedly claimed that herd immunity is not what they were aiming for.

Sweden’s lax approach to the combating of coronavirus forced its neighbouring Scandinavian countries to close the border for the Swedish citizens. Some of the Swedish officials were worried for the possible harm to the long term relations between Sweden and its neighbours.  Also, the plan of letting life go on as usual to avoid the economic recession occurring due to a lockdown also failed as it didn’t shield  the country from economic slowdown.

Here comes the question; was the lockdown successful or not? There are some comparisons that have been drawn which indicate more deaths per 100,000 people than in nearby countries with homogenous population, even though it is significantly lesser than some of the European countries. While the infections rates are double that of Denmark, the death rates in comparison are much higher. This difference has been attributed to the fact that approximately half of these deaths have occurred in old care homes despite the stated priority of the officials to protect the elderly. This has been in part to the volunteer program, which replaced symptomatic old age home cares with new volunteers, hence increasing exposure. Another factor is the lack of protective equipment in such homes, along with laws preventing administration of medical procedures without the presence of doctors. There were reports of people threatened with lawsuits for banning visitors.

All of this led to Mr.Tegnell claiming that the ideal policy would have been something between what Sweden adopted and what the other countries did, in the light of what they know now. However this claim of Mr.Tegnell will be put to test when the second wave comes, later in time.

Read More