The Eiffel Tower reopened to visitors Thursday morning after having been shut down for more than three months because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the Paris landmark’s longest closure since World War II.
The reopening is a dramatic sign of people reclaiming public spaces in France following more than 100 days of restrictions. But the tower’s highest point is still not open – and for now, visitors will need to take the stairs.
The stairs-only rule is one of several restrictions at the site, which draws millions of tourists during a normal year. Face masks are compulsory for all visitors over the age of 11, and physical distancing markers are in place.
To keep people from crossing paths on the stairs, visitors will ascend on the Eiffel Tower’s east pillar and descend on the west pillar, according to the Eiffel Tower website.
The reopening took place on a sunny and clear morning, promising wide views of the city. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo hailed the return of visitors — and as the first guests prepared to make their way up, a band of drummers performed in the plaza at the tower’s base.
Elevator service inside the monument is slated to begin again on July 1. For those who can’t wait, a ticket to walk up to the Eiffel Tower’s second floor – the wider area that cuts off just as the tower narrows toward its spire – costs 10.40 euros (about $11.65).
Tickets are being sold online in 30-minute increments. Shortly after noon local time Thursday, spots were still open through the afternoon, though the evening tickets had all been claimed, presumably by people eager to see how the City of Light comes to life in the night, even during a pandemic.
A French government official declared the coronavirus to be “under control” in early June. Days later, France joined the rest of the European Union in lifting many border restrictions within the bloc – part of a plan to salvage part of the summer tourism season.
There are signs that the virus has remained under control. France’s positive test rate for the coronavirus is 1.5%, according to the most recent data from the national public health agency. Only two of its 104 departments are considered to be in a highly vulnerable situation – and those are on islands in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean.
France has reported 161,348 confirmed coronavirus cases, including 29,731 deaths, according to government data.
Exiled Chinese dissident Guo Wengui alleged this weekend the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “allocates $2 billion a year” to pay off the Vatican for its silence concerning Chinese atrocities.
In a June 20th interview on The War Room, Mr. Guo said the CCP earmarks massive sums each year to win the allegiance of foreign countries including the Vatican, Italy, and Australia. Among them, the Vatican receives up to 2 billion dollars from the Chinese Communist Party every year, he said.
“The Chinese Communist Party allocates 2 billion US dollars each year” to gain influence over the Vatican’s internal policy making and to pay for its silence on the CCP’s repression of religious freedom, said the controversial billionaire whistleblower.
Guo has previously stated that China has drafted a complete strategy for world domination known by the initials “BGY,” which stands for Blue (control the Internet), Gold (buy influence with money), and Yellow (seduce key people with sex).
Since 2014, the CCP has formulated internal policies to invest a certain percentage of trade with foreign countries in the BGY program to erode the local state system, Guo said Saturday, and the current BGY quota for the United States is 5%.
According to data from the U.S. Trade Office, the total trade volume between China and the U.S. in 2018 was $7.37 trillion. If calculated according to 5%, the amount used for BGY in the United States would then be about $36.8 billion, Guo said.
Guo also offered a similar calculation for Australia.
“The trade volume between the CCP and Australia is about US $200 billion,” he said. “Previously, 1 percent was used for BGY, but it rose to 5 percent. That is, $10 billion was used for BGY.”
According to Guo, these huge amounts of BGY funds are employed for a variety of uses, including bribing local officials, regulating media messaging, and controlling local resources.
A 2019 report released by the International Cyber Policy Centre at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute revealed hundreds of Twitter accounts linked to the state-backed effort to denigrate pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong had formerly been used to target critics of the Chinese government, principally Guo Wengui.
The accounts were part of a coordinated information campaign operating for more than two years to target Mr. Guo as well as jailed publisher Gui Minhai.
“Those early efforts are an attempt to shape sentiment and the international narrative around these prominent critics of the Chinese government and to shape them in such a way as to influence the Chinese diaspora’s perception of these individuals,” said Jake Wallis, one of the report’s chief authors.
For its part, the Vatican has been carrying on a charm offensive with the CCP for several years, and in September 2018 signed an important secret accord with Beijing concerning the appointment of Catholic bishops in China.
According to veteran Vatican journalist John L. Allen, Jr., the Vatican has spared no effort in its attempt to woo Beijing into full diplomatic relations, a key priority of the Francis papacy.
The Vatican is “covetous of a relationship with China, and often apparently willing to stifle objections and give away a great deal” in order to move toward that goal, Allen wrote last month.
In short, “the Vatican is moving full-steam ahead in its courtship of Beijing, with the ultimate prize remaining full diplomatic relations, a secure legal standing for the church, and partnerships on the global stage,” Allen wrote.
The Vatican’s 2018 overture to Beijing was sweetened by the May 2020 launch of a new Chinese edition of the Jesuit-edited journal Civiltà Cattolica, which enjoys a semi-official Vatican status, Allen noted.
La Civiltà Cattolica said the new edition is meant “as a gesture of friendship, given the increasingly important role that the Chinese language plays in the contemporary world within the global context.”
Mr. Allen’s appraisal of the Vatican’s courtship of China squares with what other Vatican-watchers have been observing as well.
Francis dreams of being the pope who will establish diplomatic relations with Beijing, and to achieve this goal he is willing to make “concessions,” declared Vatican analyst Alban Mikozy on French television last December.
“Pope Francis is a prudent man,” Mikozy said. “He pursues a dream: to be the sovereign pontiff who will restore relations between China and the Vatican.”
“In order to do this, he is ready to make a few concessions: say nothing about Hong Kong, do not get too excited when the Chinese leader talks about rewriting the Bible,” he added, in reference to announcements that the CCP intends to retranslate the Bible and other sacred texts to make them conform to socialist ideology.
Because of this overarching desire, Mikozy said, the pope is willing to turn a blind eye to the CCP’s violations of religious liberty and other human rights issues.
Last November, for instance, during an in-flight press conference during his return flight from Asia, the pope reiterated his desire to visit China, while dodging questions about the Hong Kong pro-democracy protests.
“I would like to go to Beijing,” Francis said. “I love China.”
According to Mikozy, the pope’s silence on Hong Kong suggests that he will go to great lengths not to offend the CCP.
The pope has lavished fulsome praise on China, insisting that China’s communist government protects religious freedom and that “churches are full.”
Meanwhile, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the Argentinian Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, has held up communist China as the best model for living out Catholic social teaching today.
As businesses reopen across the U.S. after coronavirus shutdowns, many are requiring customers and workers to sign forms saying they won’t sue if they catch COVID-19.
Businesses fear they could be the target of litigation even if they adhere to safety precautions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state health officials. But workers’ rights groups say the forms force employees to sign away their rights should they get sick.
The liability waivers, similar to what President Donald Trump’s campaign is requiring for people to attend a Saturday rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, would protect businesses in states that don’t have liability limits or immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits.
So far, at least six states — Utah, North Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Alabama — have such limits through legislation or executive orders, and others are considering them. Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for national liability protections.
The novel coronavirus has sickened more than 2 million people in the U.S. and killed more than 115,000, according to Johns Hopkins University.
At Salon Medusa in West Hartford, Connecticut, hair stylist Lena Whelan says they’re using only two of six styling stations since reopening June 1. Customers have to wait outside, they have to wear masks, and all stations and tools are disinfected between clients.
Despite all those safety measures, customers must sign a form saying they won’t sue if they get infected with the novel coronavirus. The form, which also asks patrons if they or any family members have virus symptoms, gives the salon extra legal protection, Whelan said.
Critics argue that liability waivers open the door for corporations to skirt protocols like erecting Plexiglas barriers, providing face masks and other protective equipment, and keeping people the proper distance apart without suffering any repercussions.
The waivers are particularly onerous for workers who may feel compelled to sign them in order to keep their jobs, unlike customers who at least have a choice to walk away.
“It’s a terrible choice for an employee,” said Hugh Baran, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group. “Do you sign this and potentially give up your legal recourse or do you refuse and feel like you are going to lose your job?”
Worse yet, in many states, if workers refuse to sign the waivers and return to work, they risk losing unemployment benefits, Baran said. Also, immunity legislation and liability waivers disproportionately affect black and Latino workers, many of whom have jobs that can’t be done remotely, he said.
Lawyers say many business clients are asking about the waivers. Whether they can be enforced varies by state and is open to debate. Owners are wise to take a “better safe than sorry” approach, said John Wolohan, a sports law professor at Syracuse University.
“It’s hard for me to believe people don’t understand the danger of going out in public and interacting. But when somebody gets sick, I’m sure they’re going to claim the business didn’t protect them the way they should have. By having a waiver, the business will better withstand the lawsuit,” Wolohan said.
In 45 states and the District of Columbia, courts will generally enforce voluntary waivers, according to “Law for Recreation and Sport Managers,” a book Wolohan co-wrote with Doyice Cotten. Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Virginia and Wisconsin offer consumers the best chance to challenge liability waivers.
But Baran says a lot depends on how state contract laws have been interpreted by the courts. Many states, he said, have laws on the books saying that businesses have a general duty to maintain healthy and safe working conditions. In some instances, however, courts have determined that employees can sign away those rights, he said.
“This is a new situation,” Baran said of the liability forms related to the coronavirus. “It’s hard to know how state courts would view such waivers.”
Data on just how many businesses require liability waivers of employees or customers is difficult to find. Lawyers say the forms are showing up at small businesses such as hair salons and gyms where it’s hard to maintain social distancing. But it’s also showing up at the New York Stock Exchange, where Jonathan Corpina, senior managing partner with Meridian Equity Partners Inc., said Monday he was required to sign a waiver in order to enter the trading floor.
Cheryl Falvey, a partner at the Crowell and Moring law firm in Washington, D.C., and a former top lawyer at the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, said she does not think most employers would try to get their workforce to sign them.
Falvey also noted there are circumstances that waivers would not cover, including if someone who signs a waiver gets infected and then spreads the disease to family members or neighbors.
“I don’t think these waivers would cover that,” Falvey said. The wife of someone infected might argue, “I didn’t sign that waiver. You let him in and you didn’t protect him,” she said.
Harold Kim, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, said federal legislation would be better for businesses rather than a patchwork of conflicting state laws. The legislation sought by the chamber would be temporary and grant protections only if businesses followed CDC and state guidelines on the virus, he said. It would not give businesses immunity if they were grossly negligent.
“You don’t get those protections if you don’t follow that guidance,” he said.
Employees who get sick on the job might not be able to sue their employers, but would have access to workers’ compensation to cover lost wages and medical care, legal experts said. Proposed federal legislation wouldn’t affect workers’ compensation programs, which most states have, Kim said.
Through Monday, there were 2,741 lawsuits filed in the U.S. over COVID-19 infections, according to a complaint tracker maintained by the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm. Many of the cases were over government shutdown orders and which businesses were deemed essential. Only seven came from consumers and 49 were filed by employees over exposure to the virus or other related injuries. Kim said federal legislation would prevent a big surge in litigation.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un hosted a meeting to discuss the country’s nuclear capabilities, state media said on Sunday, marking his first appearance in three weeks after a previous absence sparked global speculation about his health.
Ruling Workers’ Party officials wore face masks to greet Kim as he entered the meeting of the party’s powerful Central Military Commission, state television showed, but no one including Kim was seen wearing a mask during the meeting.
Amid stalled denuclearization talks with the United States, the meeting discussed measures to bolster North Korea’s armed forces and “reliably contain the persistent big or small military threats from the hostile forces,” state news agency KCNA said.
The meeting discussed “increasing the nuclear war deterrence of the country and putting the strategic armed forces on a high alert operation,” adopting “crucial measures for considerably increasing the firepower strike ability of the artillery pieces,” it said.
Kim has made an unusually small number of outings in the past two months, with his absence from a key anniversary prompting speculation about his condition, as Pyongyang has stepped up measures against the COVID-19 pandemic.
North Korea says it has no confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, but South Korea’s intelligence agency has said it cannot rule out that the North has had an outbreak. [L4N2CO0OL]
U.S.-led negotiations aimed at dismantling North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes have made little progress since late last year, especially after a global battle on the virus began.
The Chinese government’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, expressed hope on Sunday that the United States and North Korea could resume meaningful dialogue as soon as possible, “and not squander away the hard-earned results of (previous) engagement.”
North Korea’s pledge to boost its nuclear capabilities coincides with news reports that the United States might conduct its first full-fledged nuclear test since 1992, noted Leif-Eric Easley, who teaches international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.
“The intention in Washington for pondering such a move may be to pressure Russia and China to improve arms-control commitments and enforcement,” Easley said. “But not only might this tack encourage more nuclear risk-taking by those countries, it could provide Pyongyang an excuse for its next provocation.”
What do great nations do? They bring out the best in others—not altruistically, but synergistically, through the pursuit of their own strategic interests. That is precisely the direction that President Trump is headed with regards to Greenland when he authorized a $12 million investment in the world’s largest island to develop a “sustainable” economy.”
Just eight months ago, all the usual media personalities derided and mocked the President when the press leaked his ambitions to purchase Greenland. “We could move one of the Red Sox spring training camps there,” Joe Scarborough said on his MSNBC morning show, “and, I don’t know, maybe, I don’t know, maybe move a AAA team, there’s so many opportunities there.”
No one is laughing now—especially since the investment has prompted Greenland’s prime minister, Kim Kielsen, to say the $12 million gift “confirms that our work on building a constructive relationship with the United States is fruitful.”
President Trump’s move to invest $12 million in Greenland’s economy is a substantial step to securing America’s strategic interests on the mineral-rich island. But, in order to follow through, the United States must redirect its resources away from unstrategic, endless wars, and focus on President Trump’s America-first vision for U.S. foreign ambitions.
GREENLAND’S STRATEGIC VALUE
The strategic importance of Greenland, a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, has been well understood for over 100 years. The U.S., under President Harry S. Truman, even offered $100 million for the land in 1946.
With the recent trend of ice sheets melting in Greenland, there are the makings of lucrative mining opportunities. Beneath the continental glacier of ice is soil that holds the second-largest deposit of rare-earth metals and oxides, vital for production of solar power, wind turbines, and electric cars. There is also what’s believed to be the sixth-largest deposit of uranium in the world.
Greenland is 836,300 square miles. Its acquisition would be a historical event unlike anything witnessed since our country’s third president Thomas Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase.
Rare-earth minerals are necessary components of more than 200 products across a wide range of applications, especially high-tech consumer products, such as cell phones, computer hard drives, electric and hybrid vehicles, and flat-screen monitors and televisions. In addition to their commercial value, they hold significant defense applications, such as guidance systems, lasers, radar, and sonar systems.
President Trump is also keenly aware that the potential deal could also assist Denmark, a U.S. ally and NATO member. Governing Greenland is “hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700m a year carrying it. So they carry it at a great loss and strategically for the United States it would be very nice and we’re a big ally of Denmark, we protect Denmark and we help Denmark and we will,” the President said last August.
Developing and stimulating the natural resource economy in Greenland would also improve the lives of the roughly 60,000 residents there, especially given that 16.2% of them who live below the poverty line. Liberated from a restrictive, socialist state like Denmark, and incorporated into the U.S. federal system, their local control would increase substantially while they flourished under new trade and security benefits.
It’s important to note that not securing our interests in the region comes at grave a cost—and not just to our economic security. Greenland sits in the Arctic Circle, a region with land held by eight countries (including Russia). Professor Walter Berbrick, founding director of the U.S. Naval War College’s Arctic Studies Group, called Greenland “the most important strategic location in the Arctic and perhaps the world.”
Just ask Russia and China, which are making their own strides there—threatening America’s position in the Arctic. In 2013, China became an observer state of the Arctic Council, which is made up of the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, and governs development issues and territorial rights as the polar ice recedes. Beijing’s claim to being a “near-Arctic” state was disputed by state officials, who have “found this disconcerting because of the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] behavior outside the Arctic; it often disregards international norms, as it has in the South China Sea.”
Greenland is 836,300 square miles. Its acquisition would be a historical event unlike anything witnessed since our country’s third president Thomas Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase. The U.S. hasn’t had such a diplomatic presence there since 1953—although it has maintained its northernmost military base in northeast Greenland for the last 77 years.
President Trump, as a former real estate tycoon, understands growth—winning as survival. What made America great was this kind of attitude toward expansion, its “manifest destiny” as it’s been called. The President could revive that spirit by expanding our sphere of influence to Greenland. It wouldn’t require a cultural revolution or regime change—just the economic and military power of the U.S. to open and secure access for more freedom in that stagnant Arctic land.
A NEW ERA IN FOREIGN POLICY
The general challenge of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy ambitions has been to resist getting bogged down in foreign interventions, like his predecessors, while still exerting American predominance and interests around the world. He has rightfully rejected the neoconservative and Clintonian (neoliberal) drive of expansionism through regime change wars.
The fatal mistake would be if Trump assumed that he, or any president, could juggle an international race to Greenland’s resources and endless interventionist wars at the same time.
It’s important to realize that an America-first foreign strategy will end up up a tragic waste of time unless President Trump puts a stop to never-ending military missions like the ones in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. As President Trump is well aware, over $6.5 trillion has been spent on the war on terror so far. The President must realize what else could’ve been accomplished with the taxpayers’ money.
In addition to the more well-known war theaters, the United States currently has CIA or military boots on the ground in Chad, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and Tunisia. The strategic gains from these conflicts are marginal given the cost in blood and treasure being bogged down in these “hell holes.”
The fatal mistake would be if Trump assumed that he, or any president, could juggle an international race to Greenland’s resources and endless interventionist wars at the same time.
Wall Street estimates the price of the island to be $533 billion, while the Washington Post puts the estimate as high as $1.7 trillion. Not only would those funds have to be secured, but to make military use of the island would mean a shift in deployments, adding additional costs for new military infrastructure.
Fortunately for Trump, he’s got the American people on his side, especially against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden when it comes to foreign policy. But the President shouldn’t take that vote for granted.
Barely a quarter of Americans agreed that military interventions make America safer in a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in September 2019. In a more recent poll, conducted by Concerned Veterans for America, 73% of veterans said they would support removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan; 71% of veterans said the same thing about Iraq. Relatives of veterans closely mirrored those same polling patterns.
The same poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, shows that Americans increasingly support the U.S. taking a more active role in global affairs—but in a way that doesn’t embroil us in perpetual war.
The fact is that President Trump’s foreign policy efforts have not been an unqualified success thus far. The Afghanistan war lingers on, despite attempted peace talks with the Taliban, and there are U.S. troops in Syria—the bulk of whom are North and South Carolina national guardsmen—guarding oil fields for some unclear reason. President Trump isn’t blinded by anti-interventionist ideology—meaning the threat of war looms.
In order to deliver his 2016 campaign promises, and boost optimism towards our global standing, President Trump should continue to redirect our foreing policy efforts to projects like the Greenland purchase—projects that signal a positive, substantial shift in U.S. foreign policy.
A ban on the sale of menthol flavoured cigarettes, menthol rolling tobacco, and capsule cigarettes came into force as of Wednesday in the UK, obeying a European Union directive, which critics fear is the first step towards a full “prohibition” on tobacco.
On Wednesday, the flavoured cigarettes were banned as a part of the EU Tobacco Product Directive that was transposed into UK law despite the nation leaving the bloc earlier this year. The new law is expected to extend beyond the Brexit transition period, which is set to end on December 31st, 2020.
The nanny state style regulations were supposedly set in place to reduce the number of smokers as well as deter younger people from picking up the habit. European bureaucrats argued that menthol is catered towards novice smokers as a result of its cooling effect, according to The Sun.
The move to ban tobacco products is just the latest restriction to be placed on the industry in Britain. Cigarette companies were previously forced — again by EU diktat — to remove all branding from their products, which was replaced with ominous government health warnings from the National Health Service (NHS), the country’s socialised health care provider.
British shop keepers are also mandated by the government to keep cigarettes hidden from the view of their patrons, and are banned from selling smaller sized packets.
To the director of the smokers’ group Forest, Simon Clark, Brexit is a chance for the United Kingdom to reclaim personal liberties and its ability to craft its own laws.
“Inside or outside the EU, Britain is sleepwalking to prohibition. Policies such as the display ban and plain packaging have tried to denormalise tobacco but the product has always been available to adults who choose to smoke,” Mr Clark wrote.
“Brexit is an opportunity to bring power back to the people. Let’s not waste it by imposing further lifestyle regulations on a population tired of being told what to do,” he added.
The ban will come as a shock to many British smokers, as a recent poll conducted by Populus found that 39 per cent of the country’s 7.4 million smokers were unaware the ban on menthol tobacco products was coming at all.
The ban comes just ahead of the ‘World No Tobacco Day’ on May 31st, a World Health Organization initiative.
In just over 20 years, Google became one of the world’s largest companies and arguably the most recognized brand. At the very least, it’s one of the few companies that legitimately doubles as a proper noun and a verb.
The company has also evolved significantly beyond its search engine roots, planting seeds in industries from retail to education to enterprise. Google also has a burgeoning Food, Beverage and Restaurants vertical. Although many of the company’s integrations may be subtle because of our habitual use of Google products, its presence is becoming quite ubiquitous in the restaurant space.
In late 2018, Google redesigned its signature Maps site, adding star ratings for restaurants on the map view, for example. About eight months later, Google Maps started testing a new feature that shows users images of the most popular meals at a restaurant, pulled from machine learning based on reviews and photos.
The company also introduced new features for Lens, including the ability to recommend the most popular meals at restaurants by pointing a mobile phone camera at a menu. The update also enables Google to split a bill or calculate a tip after a meal by pointing the camera at the receipt.
Further, the company has added a food ordering function through a partnership with Olo, and adelivery option within its Maps, Search and Assistant platforms through partnerships with delivery.com and ChowNow.
Ryan Olohan recently started overseeing the Food, Beverage and Restaurant vertical after spending seven years managing healthcare teams focused on the pharma industry. He makes it clear that the team’s directive is simple: to help restaurant partners.
Why is Google extending its tentacles so far throughout the restaurant industry?
“Because digital demand has never been higher. In fact, there are over one billion restaurant searches on Google every month, while ‘food near me’ continues to be one of the fastest-growing search terms,” Olohan said.
Of those one billion searches per month, about 89% are done on a smartphone. Therein lies a big opportunity for Google, particularly as more consumers shift their ordering habits to digital–a habit forming prior to the COVID-19 crisis, but expedited because of it.
“Our investments in the restaurant space are allowing consumers to find what they need faster and even order delivery or carryout right from Google if the customer chooses,” Olohan said. “This is a massive advantage for hungry consumers and restaurant owners.”
Indeed, Google Maps is by far the most popular navigation app and the preferred app for three-fourths of mobile navigation users. Further, Android’s share of the U.S. mobile market is about 54%, so elevating ratings on this default map platform, for example, is significant for audience capture alone.
What’s the full potential here? Well, Google gives restaurants the ability to tap into the 1 billion mobile users each month who are looking for food options, and it drives an action, whether that action is helping a consumer find a restaurant near them, order delivery or drive awareness of a new product.
“Restaurants can use first-party data to have specific strategies to drive new customers versus increased frequency of their current customers,” Olohan said. That data includes “what’s trending” aggregation, to show where customers are most likely to search for plant-based burgers, for example.
That first-party piece is especially a big deal in an environment bogged down by third-party vendors, some of whom charge massive commission fees that erode restaurants’ already-thin profit margins. Olohan insists that’s not Google’s objective here.
“Our job is not to sell Google products, but to understand our partners’ business objectives, the dynamics of their organization and to ensure we are all rowing in the same direction,” Olohan said. “We want to make sure consumers are finding the information they need and have the most frictionless experience.”
So, what’s next? The potential is significant in the nearly $900 billion restaurant industry for a company as dynamic and diverse as Google, especially as the use of digital channels accelerates in a post-pandemic world.
“We have come a long way in just the past five years so it’s exciting to see what the next five years will bring with machine learning, 5G and more digital-savvy consumers. [Or] voice search, frictionless ordering experiences, food delivery, visual search for finding popular items on a menu, and sustainability measures to reduce food waste,” Olohan said.
It’s worth noting that Olohan wears another hat as well – as the owner of an ice cream and coffee shop called Seven Scoops & Sips. This role enables him to realize some of the benefits Google is working to create in the vast restaurant space.
“In a few seconds, our customers can read our reviews, get directions and even order online through Google’s food ordering program,” Olohan said. “While this might not be a big deal for a large chain like McDonald’s, I’m incredibly grateful that Google has leveled the playing field for countless mom and pops.”
he World Health Organization has warned that a “new way of living” will be needed until a coronavirus vaccine is ready.
Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the Western Pacific, has said that lifting lockdown measures too quickly will leave countries vulnerable to new surges of infections.
The body has urged governments to lift social distancing measures gradually, to keep the deadly bug in check.
Speaking at an online press conference, Dr Kasai added that no country is safe from a potentially overwhelming outbreak if Covid-19 is still circulating.
As a result, ordinary people’s lives and health systems will both need to adapt because of the global pandemic.
“At least until a vaccine, or a very effective treatment, is found, this process will need to become our new normal,” he said.
“Individuals and society need to be ready for a new way of living.”
Governments considering lifting lockdown measures should do so carefully and in stages, and continue to monitor infection levels, he continued.
Most experts estimate it will take 12 to 18 months to develop and mass produce a coronavirus vaccine.
However scientists worldwide are racing to develop a jab which can offer protection against the flu-like virus.
The first human trials of a jab which is being developed at the University of Oxford are set to begin next week, and researchers are hopeful that a million doses could be available by September.
Although it is too early to say if it will be safe or effective, Professor Sarah Gilbert, who is leading the research, has previously said she is “80% confident” it will be successful.
The number of daily coronavirus deaths in the UK dropped to its lowest level in two weeks as 463 new fatalities were reported in the last 24 hours.
It is less than half of Britain’s record single-day high of 953 and it brings Britain’s death toll to 16,535 amid fresh signs the curve could be flattening and the UK could be reaching its peak.
Daily totals have dropped two days in a row but the decreases should be met with caution as many deaths won’t be counted until later due to a lag in reporting weekend deaths.
The lag results in a spike in weekday figures.
England reported an additional 429 deaths on Monday, Scotland recorded 12, Wales had another nine and Northern Ireland has announced 13 new fatalities.
BENGALURU (Reuters) – India said on Thursday videoconferencing software Zoom is “not a safe platform”, joining other countries that have expressed concern about the security of an application that has become hugely popular worldwide during the coronavirus lockdown.
U.S.-based Zoom Video Communications Inc has apologized for security flaws and says it is working to fix them. Problems have included “Zoombombing”, when uninvited users gatecrash a video conference.
“Zoom is a not a safe platform,” the Cyber Coordination Centre (CyCord) of India’s ministry of home affairs said in a 16-page advisory.
The government body also provided guidelines on how to avoid unauthorized users from carrying out malicious acts while using the tool.
A Zoom spokesman said the company was in talks with governments around the world and was “focused on providing the information they need to make informed decisions about their policies”.
The company founder and Chief Executive Officer Eric Yuan earlier this month apologized for what he called falling short of “the community’s – and our own – privacy and security expectations.” The company was dedicating resources to identify and fix the issues, he added.
Zoom has enjoyed a surge in usage since the virus outbreak began, as millions of people use it to stay connected while isolating themselves. In March it had about 200 million people using its system every day, up from 10 million last year.
“Before Zoom’s explosive growth, there were a few key cybersecurity precautions that were overlooked,” said Logan Kipp, director at cybersecurity firm SiteLock.
“From the get-go, there should have been stronger encryption methods in place and perhaps additional consideration about third-party data sharing,” he said.
Zoom’s mobile app saw a sharp surge in downloads in India as the country enforced a nationwide lockdown late last month to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
Even some Indian government officials have held discussions with industry executives to discuss coronavirus relief measures via Zoom. One media report this week said the Indian government was advising its ministers not to use third-party software for sensitive meetings.
(Reporting by Sachin Ravikumar and Supantha Mukherjee in Bengaluru and Devjyot Ghoshal in New Delhi; Editing by Aditya Kalra, Peter Graff and Anil D’Silva)