How the pandemic has affected global peace and security

When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in March 2020, the UN Secretary General called for a global ceasefire to help respond to the virus, create better conditions for the delivery of life-saving humanitarian aid and open-up space for diplomacy. The logic was compelling: that armed groups should stop fighting each other in order to fight the virus. The organisation I lead, Crisis Action, immediately sprang into action to mobilise support for the global ceasefire. We organised two videoconferences for over 130 international NGOs, coordinated letters to the UN Security Council and the African Union (signed by over 200 organisations from 35 countries), and worked with high-profile individuals from the Pope to Mary Robinson, Ban Ki-moon and a number of foreign ministers to support the ceasefire. A social media campaign to support the #GlobalCeasefire and #Doves4Peace reached over 8.6 million people worldwide. A petition by Avaaz supporting the global ceasefire garnered over 2.2 million signatures. These initiatives secured global, high-profile media coverage from The New York Times to CNN Arabic. Within weeks of the initial call, 110 countries had supported the ceasefire and 24 warring parties in 11 conflict zones, agreed to put down their arms;this included situations in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Colombia, Libya, Myanmar, the Philippines, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. This resulted in a temporary de-escalation of violence in some of the world’s most devastating conflicts.

Assessing visible aerosol generation during vitrectomy in the era of Covid-19.

OBJECTIVE: To assess visible aerosol generation during simulated vitrectomy surgery. METHODS: A model comprising a human cadaveric corneoscleral rim mounted on an artificial anterior chamber was used. Three-port 25 gauge vitrectomy simulated surgery was performed with any visible aerosol production recorded using high-speed 4K camera. The following were assessed: (1) vitrector at maximum cut rate in static and dynamic conditions inside the model, (2) vitrector at air-fluid interface in a physical model, (3) passive fluid-air exchange with a backflush hand piece, (4) valved cannulas under air, and (5) a defective valved cannula under air. RESULTS: No visible aerosol or droplets were identified when the vitrector was used within the model. In the physical model, no visible aerosol or droplets were seen when the vitrector was engaged at the air-fluid interface. Droplets were produced from the opening of backflush hand piece during passive fluid-air exchange. No visible aerosol was produced from the intact valved cannulas under air pressure, but droplets were seen at the beginning of fluid-air exchange when the valved cannula was defective. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of visible aerosol generation during simulated vitrectomy surgery with competent valved cannulas. In the physical model, no visible aerosol was generated by the high-speed vitrector despite cutting at the air-fluid interface.