21 May 2020 Safelight UV FAR UVC: Airborne-mediated microbial diseases like coronavirus, influenza and tuberculosis are major public health challenges.
One way of preventing airborne transmission that has long been established is by inactivating airborne pathogens with UVC ultraviolet light.
What has held this tech back from being implemented widely in public settings is the fact that many conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and tend to induce cataracts.
Now there is SAFELIGHT UV patent-pending FAR UVC lighting that is made in the USA for all sort of public spaces from offices to large stadium venues. The new lighting products are called Wave222 and Wave222 Gateway
The manufacturers hope that their technology could play a big part in bringing everyday life back to normal. They state that FAR UVC Lighting is safe for humans as it does not penetrate human skin or damage the eye’s cornea.
The key advances in UV lighting technology were highlighted by FAR-UVC lamps. These devices operate at a wavelength of 222 nanometers (nm). This frequency doesn’t penetrate skin or the outer layer of the human eye and it is being brought to bear on the fightback against the coronavirus and other superbugs.
The aim of these USA-made products is to be installed at the entrances of buildings, theme parks, transportation terminals and sporting events.
A company spokesman says: “FAR SAFE UVC lighting will be a game-changer for bringing people back to work in offices or other places with large gatherings such as sporting events or even transportation terminals.
“We are here to stop the invisible enemy and help with creating calm and security with FAR UVC lighting in schools, dormitories, office buildings sports arenas, supermarkets, airport, bus, cruise ship and train terminals.”
The FAR UVC 222 nm wavelength was discovered by Dr David Brenner at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, and SAFELIGHT UV has taken it a step further to develop this technology to provide safe environments for people so they can continue their daily lives.
The way UV lights disinfect is by disrupting the molecular bonds that hold microbial genetic material (proteins) together.
Commonly used lights have wavelengths of 254nm, which have relatively short UV wavelengths— called the “C” category—which can penetrate skin and eyes causing cancer and cataracts.
About Safelight UV FAR UVC:
Safelight UV is a FAR UVC made-in-the-USA lighting manufacturer for human safe UVC lights that kill bacteria and inactivate viruses
The UK’s blind, blanket ban on movement during this coronavirus crisis is akin to trying to fly a plane, navigate a ship or drive a car wearing a blindfold and ear plugs!
Compare us to Germany, which is currently testing as many as 500,000 people each week for Covid-19. Britain, on the other hand, is badly lagging behind. In the UK just 104,800 tests have been conducted in the entire period since the end of January.
When we compare the proportion of people infected who go on to die the lowest rates of all are in Germany and Austria. Only around 0.7% of people infected go on to die in these countries.
Indeed, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre, of the 53,340 Germans infected just 395 have died. In Austria the figures are 7,712 infections have led to just 58 fatalities.
There is no real difference between the way that Germany tests people and the way we do it in the UK. Where the difference is stark is in the volume of the testing.
Germany now tests as many as 500,000 people a week for coronavirus, while Britain has conducted a measly 104,800 tests in the whole period since January’s end.
Austria is also testing heavily. Its plan is to hit 15,000 tests a day while Britain, with nearly eight times the size of population, says it aims for just 10,000 a day by the end of this month.
In Germany, the Robert Koch Institute, that has the responsibility for officially recording deaths in that country, says it treats “someone to be a corona death” in all cases where some sort of corona infection is proven. This effectively means those deaths counted as corona deaths include ALL deaths that can be associated with Covid-19.
So the German testers include all who have died from Covid-19, including all people who have underlying health problems and are infected even where it’s not even possible to say what actually killed them.
Those who are not tested before they die but are suspected of Covid-19 are tested post-mortem and if there are signs of coronavirus infection, they are listed as Covid-19 deaths.
So the German method counts anyone infected with Covid-19 who goes on to die as a Covid-19 victim regardless of whether it’s proven the virus killed them directly.
That is pretty much how deaths are also counted in the UK. So we are comparing like with like. The reasons for Germany’s lower death toll, are largely down to this extensive testing. The fact is that high testing rates not only assist authorities monitor and understand coronavirus’s spread but also it helps the medics fight Covid-19’s lethality.
With clear knowledge of what is going on and where enables the selective quarantining of those people who have or may have the virus so that the most vulnerable can be better shielded. It means medical attention can be targeted at the vulnerable at an early stage so their chances of survival are increased.
Globalization has dominated the world economy for years. But recent trends are indicating that many major economies are turning their backs on being drawn deeper together. The signs are that there’s a growing desire to be less inter-connected through global networks of capital flows, trade, and technology.
Global trade is becoming less advantageous. There are even cases where it is also on the way to being less feasible.
This is a major turnaround for what in the last half a century had been seen as the prevailing trend that would inexorably move in the same direction.
What is conspiring to slow globalization? The combination of geopolitical shifts, secular trends and trade tensions are just aspects of this story.
Tariffs are a very visible barrier to global trade, but other hurdles, including the US’s foreign investment review, are also diluting any business incentive to globalize, according to senior bankers.
In addition, changes in consumer preferences along with greater purchasing power in emerging markets are boosting regional trade over global trade. Technology is exacerbating these trends by enabling leaner manufacturing methods. The highly acclaimed Dutch trend watcher Adjiedj Bakas calls it “slow-balization”.
When it comes to investment, there are advantages and disadvantages. Barriers to global trade threaten to disrupt major businesses that rely on smooth flows including capital goods, semiconductors, telecoms, and automobiles – indeed any industries where technologies are sensitive and whose supply chains are globally diffuse.
However, increased localization may turn out to be a bonus for those businesses that don’t rely so heavily on foreign markets, and whose products have a critical economic or national security interest. Good examples of these “emerging regional champions” are China’s internet firms, and local payment processors as well as some smaller US internet operators.
Globalization Goes Into Reverse
Even before trade tensions began to reassert themselves, secular winds of change were already blowing.
About 20 years ago, transportation and communication costs were decreasing and long-haul trade across the world’s oceans became prevalent. McKinsey Global Institute research shows that between 2000 and 2012 the share of goods traded between the same region’s countries dropped from 51% to 45%. This trend is now reversing and regional trade is again gaining traction.
Underpinning this are two things. Goods trade is now growing less fast than service trade. And the success of globalization has led to emerging market countries growing rich enough to be consuming more of the very goods that they have been selling.
In hindsight, it’s a natural evolution of globalization, and, according to McKinsey, the consequence is that between 2007 and 2017 the share of output moving across the world’s borders has dropped from 28.1% to 22.5%.
Trade Patterns Change Shape
Trade patterns are also being encouraged to change. McKinsey reports that the old lean manufacturing approach emphasizing low inventory levels -“just-in-time” logistics – is no longer as popular as it once was.
Now just 18% of the world’s goods trade is founded on labor-cost arbitrage. Indeed, McKinsey expects this share to shrink further as companies streamline their supply chains and adopt more automation.
This is very different from the turn of the century when a large number of businesses based decisions about supply-chains on the ability to source low-cost labor, even when it meant shipping supplies, components and finished goods all over the world.
A final aspect that is also making globalization less attractive is technology. Countries are now thinking differently about the link between economic interests and their national security. The US, for example, is now defining its sensitivity in a much broader manner.
So, taking automobiles as an example, the technology on which driverless cars depend is highly likely to have military applications, and the US doesn’t want foreign powers – least of all China – having any knowledge or influence in this field.
Taking Advantage of Slow-balization
Shifting tides create complex dynamics, but investors can still start thinking about the broad implications by seeking answers to a couple of key questions:
How sensitive is a business’s product to a particular country’s economic or national security?
What is the reliance on global supply chains, and does this make sense anymore?
Those businesses that are most vulnerable to the effects of “slow-balization” are the ones dealing in economic and security sensitive technologies and still depending on a supply chain that is globally diffuse. Think European capital goods, autos, telecoms, IT hardware, and semiconductors.
It’s less easy to assess internet companies. While the biggest consumer internet businesses are facing higher costs of doing business because platform health and data security are playing bigger roles, smaller rivals could find they benefit for similar reasons.
It’s highly likely companies dealing in sensitive areas, but not closely entwined with the rest of the world, will be better placed. China’s internet firms, for example, are vital for that country’s economic security and outlook but their business has been focused almost exclusively on China itself.
Another area that is worth considering from an investment perspective is payments. Payment firms could be net beneficiaries because they are tuned into issues of tax collection and banking functions as well as national security, while digital payments is unstoppable irrespective of global trade. As a result, payment schemes that are domestically developed could get the edge.
The Conservatives would benefit from cooperating with Nigel Farage and his business in a forthcoming general election – but would the arch-Brexiteer sacrifice his latest venture?
There are many hurdles in the way of the pact that Farage has indicated he may desire between The Brexit Party Ltd that he owns and Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.
At a rally in Westminster to announce the Brexit Party’s next wave of candidates to fight for seats in the next general election last week, Farage confirmed the Brexit Party would form a “non-aggression pact” with the Conservative Party if it pursues a no-deal Brexit.
However, now that there are moves to block this outcome from happening and Johnson says he would prefer to leave the EU with a deal, it’s questionable about what happens next.
While the value of a pact to the Conservative party is obvious, its attraction to the Brexit Party is far from clear.
Let’s assume Farage is open to a pact to get the biggest representation in parliament for his limited company, as he was indicating again yesterday.
He would, therefore, need the Conservatives to stand down in seats the Brexit Party Ltd could win.
Where are these? The most obvious are the seats with the highest Brexit vote in 2016. There were 50 where 67% or more voted to leave the EU.
Where possibly could Johnson’s Tories stand down?
After the seats that currently still have Conservative MPs are ruled out – including Boston and Skegness, which had the highest pro-Brexit vote of 75% – 26 Labour-held and strongly pro-Brexit seats would remain.
There are 13 of these that are Labour-Conservative marginals, which could fall to the Tories on a 7% swing. It is highly unlikely that the Tories would surrender these: they are exactly the sort of seats the Tories need to target if they are to have any hope of securing a clear majority in a new parliament.
What remains are the 13 powerfully pro-Brexit Labour seats where the Tories haven’t a realistic hope in hell of winning.
This means it would not worry them a lot if they were offered to Farage. However, although his limited company did well in all of them last May, the Brexit Party Ltd would struggle to win any of them in a general election. Why? Because they include Doncaster North, where Ed Miliband’s majority is 14,024, and Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, where Yvette Cooper is 14,499 ahead of the Tories.
In these, and the other 11 seats on this list, the Conservatives have never done well in living memory: they include towns and cities like Barnsley, Hemsworth, Hull, Redcar, Rotherham, and Wentworth.
If the Tories were to stand down and throw their endorsement in the direction of the Brexit party, Farage’s candidates in these Labour heartlands would lose their most appealing quality: they are a Tory-hating alternative for pro-Brexit voters that would not help Johnson.
If voters locally were pressured into choosing between their existing, pro-EU Labour MP and a Tory-backed pro-Brexit candidate, the smart money would be on Miliband, Cooper et al holding their seats.
A pact may not only reduce Farage’s limited company’s chances in Labour’s heartlands; but also, by standing down in a number of marginals the Brexit Party Ltd would be diminishing its vote tally overall. It may not matter in a formal sense but to an insurgent party with ambitions, the symbolic significance would not be a good look.
So, whatever Farage says, a pact looks extremely unattractive to the Brexit party in terms of seats and overall votes.
However, Farage is unlikely to want to be remembered as the man who stopped Brexit happening, so the most obvious benefit of a pact to him and his cabal is that, even if his party ends up with no MPs, by standing aside in the key marginals he could make sure there is a clear Tory majority so the UK would leave the EU.
Without such a pact, the pro-Brexit vote would split in many key seats. Labour and the LibDems could make the gains they need to make sure of a majority for a fresh Brexit referendum in the new parliament, and the UK could remain in the EU after all.
So there is a paradox for Farage.
On the one hand, a pact could advance the Brexit Party Ltd’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: it would lose its purpose and its future with zilch MPs, but it would be able to watch Brexit happen from the sidelines.
On the other hand, failure to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit altogether, but it would also be bound to probably fatally damage the Tories, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage could have a big impact.
Which future would Farage prefer? It looks like we won’t have long to find out.