Inglês – Anpec 2016

Germany and Greece are involved in discussions about the joint construction of a power plant;

The debate between the two countries has been remarkably dignified;

Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister in 2013, supported the country´s default on its debts;

A YouTube video showing Mr. Varoufakis stating his position was shown to him on March 15th;

The so-called “Fingergate” has been raging for months.

Relations between Greece and Germany are at their best;

Germany´s finance minister and Prime Minister Varoufakis no longer trust each other;

Mr. Schäuble called Mr. Tsipras “foolishly naive”;

Germany is Greece´s largest creditor;

There has been a centre-right government in Greece since January.

Terrorists will certainly be among refugees allowed by Greece to pass through to Germany;

Greece´s defence minister has threatened to take strong measures to keep Syrian refugees out of Europe;

Syrian refugees might include terrorists;

Syria is looked upon by Greece as an old oppressor;

The Goethe Institute in Athens now belongs to Greece.

was an ally of Nazi Germany;

was leniently treated by Germany during World War II;

has decided not to press claims on Germany about compensation derived from the 1941-44 occupation;

has not incurred in new debts recently;

was not treated as badly by Nazi Germany as the Slavic countries.

Germany has accepted its responsibilities for the past but on its own terms;

In Berlin all traces of the occupation by the Red Army have been obliterated;

German politicians generally ignore references to the suffering undergone by countries occupied by the Nazis;

Walls in Berlin have been carefully cleaned of Cyrillic graffiti;

Germans don´t mind being reminded of the past by others. 8 Text 2 Pandemic disease Never again As the Ebola epidemic draws gradually to its close, how should the world arm itself against the risks of insurgent infections? Mar 21st 2015 | From the print edition THE outbreak of Ebola fever brought to the world’s attention on March 22nd 2014 by Médecins Sans Frontières, an international charity, has infected some 25,000 people and killed more than 10,000 of them—almost all in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It is abating. Liberia is close to declaring itself free of the virus and infection rates are falling in Sierra Leone. But it is not over yet, for in Guinea Ebola still kills dozens of people a week. Moreover, the aftermath will harm the three countries’ economies, costing at least $1.6 billion in forgone economic growth this year, according to the World Bank. Though it could have been a lot worse (at the height of the crisis some epidemiologists were talking of hundreds of thousands of deaths) it might also have been a lot better. Previous Ebola outbreaks killed dozens or hundreds. The whole episode therefore suggests that the world’s defences against epidemics, though they have been strengthened since the rapid spread of SARS in 2002 and 2003 demonstrated their weaknesses, could do with reinforcing still further. The prime directive of epidemic prevention is early detection. That means good surveillance. Unfortunately, only 64 of the 194 members of the World Health Organisation (WHO) have surveillance procedures, laboratories and data-management capabilities good enough to fulfil their obligations under an agreement known as the International Health Regulations. This, though, is changing. In Africa, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda have sharpened up. So has Vietnam. America is now helping 30 other countries, including the three affected by Ebola, to follow suit while, at the same time, improving their networks of clinics. Groups of neighbours are also coming together to form regional surveillance networks that can follow outbreaks across borders. Researchers in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, for example, have formed what they call the Asian Partnership on Emerging Infectious Diseases Research. Along with early detection, the world needs to get better at responding—both institutionally and technologically. The WHO, notoriously slow off the mark when it came to Ebola, is widely regarded as too ponderous and bureaucratic to react with the speed needed to nip an emerging epidemic in the bud. There is talk of setting up a specialist international epidemic-prevention organisation. Bill Gates, a philanthropist whose foundation does a lot of work on disease control in poor countries, encourages this idea in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine. He notes that epidemics and war are similarly costly of blood and treasure, but that only war is taken seriously by politicians—at least in terms of preparations such as standing armies. As if to prove the point, the threat of bioterrorism has been one motive for what preparations have been put in place. 9 An army, of course, needs weapons. And, in the case of epidemics, it is important to think about what those might be. The temptation is to put money into high-profile areas like vaccines and drugs. It may, though, be more useful to concentrate on diagnosis, because this can stop people spreading a disease. The science of diagnostic testing is advancing rapidly, making it easier to come up quickly with a test for a new pathogen. That, Mr Gates believes, presents an opportunity. But it is one, he says, which requires the establishment of a rapid approval and procurement process, so that diagnostic tests can be made available quickly during outbreaks. They also need to be portable, like pregnancy tests, to keep people out of clinics where they might otherwise spread infection. Drugs and vaccines are still important, of course. Research is going on into ways to make new vaccines quickly, so trials can start within days of an outbreak. Modern biological techniques mean a pathogen’s genome can be copied and stuck into other cells to turn out proteins which might be used as a vaccine’s active ingredients. Once a vaccine has been identified, the same techniques could be used to make it quickly, and possibly locally if a portable factory were shipped to an affected area. The sinews of war But none of this rapid response can happen without cash. One lesson of an earlier incident, the H1N1 influenza (“swine flu”) pandemic of 2009, was the lack of a contingency fund to deal with such things. This is a problem Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, is determined to solve. He has been meeting with politicians and the private sector to advance the case for a “global pandemic emergency financing facility”. One more modest possibility is that pools of research funding could be set up in advance, along with agreed research protocols, allowing health studies to start more quickly. An existing example of this is a fund created by the Wellcome Trust, a British medical charity. Even on the coldest of calculations, a contingency fund would be a wise precaution. The damage caused by Ebola to west Africa’s economy is trivial compared with the cost of, say, a global influenza pandemic. The World Bank reckons that might reduce global economic activity by almost 5%. How many would die would depend on the virus’s virulence. But even a 1% death rate, for something that was truly worldwide, would add up to millions. That is too much blood, and too much treasure, for politicians to ignore. From the print edition: Science and technology

is still raging mainly in Sierra Leone;

has only affected people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone;

was brought to the world´s attention by the World Bank;

has infected approximately one quarter of one hundred thousand people;

has been declared over in Liberia.

There had been Ebola outbreaks before;

Epidemiologists never expected more than a few dozen deaths;

Only the economy of Guinea will be harmed this year;

The world´s defences against epidemics are completely effective;

There has been no response to the rapid spread of SARS in 2002 and 2003.

It is impossible to detect epidemics early;

Good surveillance is essential;

The majority of the members of WHO have effective surveillance procedures;

Most countries have laboratories that meet the International Health Regulations requirements;

Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda are lagging behind.

Vietnam is taking seriously its obligations towards the International Health Regulations;

Neighbouring countries have, up to now, refused to work together;

Some Asian countries are considering the formation of a partnership to do research into Emerging Infectious Diseases;

The WHO has always reacted promptly to the challenges of an emerging epidemic like Ebola;

The WHO has now shed its bureaucratic approach.

The setting up of an organization to prevent epidemics has never been considered;

Bill Gates will set up a foundation to work on disease control in poor countries;

Bill Gates has never written for the “New England Journal of Medicine”;

Bill Gates believes that there are similarities between epidemics and war;

Epidemics are not as costly in blood as war.

The threat of bioterrorism has not been taken seriously;

The science of diagnostic testing is not progressing;

Although important, diagnosis won´t stop people spreading a disease;

Diagnostic tests should be made available at clinics;

Areas like vaccines and drugs attract more investment.

Financial resources have long been in place for a rapid response to epidemics;

The H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 had a contingency fund to help deal with it;

Bill Gates has decided to set up “a global pandemic emergency financing facility;

America is helping the three countries affected by Ebola to improve their networks of clinics;

China has decided not to join the Asian partnership on Emerging Infectious Diseases Research.

It might be easier to fund pools of research in advance;

No research protocols would be needed;

Unfortunately there are no funds for pools of research at the moment;

The Wellcome Trust is considering setting up a fund to help research;

The Wellcome Trust deals with economic problems in poor countries.

The setting up of a contingency fund is not necessary;

The setting up of a contingency fund should be considered seriously;

The damage caused by Ebola to West Africa´s economy could be comparable to the cost of a possible global influenza pandemic;

The World Bank doesn´t even dare measure the impact of a global influenza pandemic on the global economic activity;

It is not urgent for health studies to start quickly.

The number of deaths would have to do with the strength of the virus;

A 1% death rate worldwide would account for the loss of thousands of lives;

Politicians would probably ignore the loss of so many lives;

Politicians would probably ignore a reduction of almost 5% in the global economic activity;