Le Dragon Déchaîné

Memoirs of a “Super-Spreader”

March 17th for Lam and I started at the Hamad International Airport in Doha. It was our last exchange before Lam would catch his flight at 2:30 am or so to Ho Chi Minh and I would go back home to Kathmandu. We’d blamed coronavirus for the situation we were in, for the emotional rollercoaster that we’d experienced- not knowing the ride really hadn’t even begun. While we were in quarantine, Lam tested positive for COVID-19, something he will talk about on his own. This was a big reality check for both of us and many of our friends. Something we had only seen in memes and farewell letters had snuck its way into our reality. Two days later I too tested positive for COVID-19.

Nepal only had one case of coronavirus prior to mine which was of a student who had already recovered. Therefore on paper, my country maintained a 100% recovery rate. Due to this many citizens took pride in the fact that Nepal did not have any other cases. Many beliefs went around on why we had been spared by COVID-19, reinforcing a form of national pride rooted in conspiracies. Under these circumstances, I was the second ever and the only active case in Nepal. My case, therefore, had no previous protocol to follow and not many knew how to approach my situation.

My family was notified of my test report at 10:00 pm. Despite my sister repeatedly telling me that I had tested positive I refused to believe it. I had shown no symptoms until that day. Retrospectively thinking, between the time I got tested and the report was released, I had convinced myself that I had been overthinking. I had found some comfort in denying that I had the virus and denying the possibility that I may have infected anyone with it. The thought that I may have infected people on the way or my own family remained my biggest concern after coming to terms with my situation for the rest of the days that followed. Afterall the doctor had specified that I had a large virus count, which translated to the fact that at that point I was extremely contagious. Amidst my thoughts of concern and anxiety, an ambulance was headed towards my house to pick me up immediately to place me into the government hospital isolation ward.

The symptoms started on the very first night at the hospital, where I was admitted on the 22nd of March. I had massive stomach pains that had resulted in me not being able to sleep the whole night. This, along with the shortness of breath. You know how when you pay attention to your breathing and it starts feeling more and more abnormal every time you inhale? It was like that but for several days. My chest forbade me from taking deep breaths. My body was in control of itself and I no longer was. Getting out of bed had to be done with effort, eating had to be done by force and insomnia prevailed. A night I remember distinctly is when after reading about lack of smell being a COVID-19 symptom I tried to smell a bar of soap. Surprise surprise: I couldn’t. As per the symptoms go I also faced minor dry cough, while I did not have a fever at any given time. Nonetheless, it is important to note that my case was mild. My heart goes out to those who have had to experience this virus, many who have had it much worse than me.

Throughout all of this, the media played a big role in my circumstances. I knew I would have to bear the consequences of everyone coming to know that “a 19-year-old girl, a student who had travelled from France via Doha on the 17th of March” had tested positive. Kathmandu is a small city, thereupon to those who knew me, these details automatically struck my name. Although the media kept my name anonymous -and I’m not exaggerating when I say this- almost every outlet I knew had quickly written an article about me with the above-mentioned details and many more. Some that were true, but many false. Lam had become my female roommate in Paris. I had apparently met with many relatives before I got tested. My parents were made into doctors. A particularly striking article was the following, where the editor in chief of the New York Times partner newspaper in Nepal, the Republica, had labelled me a ‘super-spreader’ out of speculation. They didn’t know my story, they didn’t have any evidence of me spreading the virus. But to many people, that was who I had become- a super-spreader.

The 23rd of March was something else. Somehow, somewhere, someone else had decided the narrative to my story. They had changed up my facts to fit theirs. I became subject and subjected to the stigmatization that surrounded coronavirus in my country. Social media was exploding. People were blaming me, people hated me, and many even went as far as to give me death threats, suggesting that they rather have me shot dead than alive. The negative comments got to a point where my doctors would often call requesting me not to check the news. I had proof of my self-quarantine and I had proof of how careful I had been, yet I did not have a voice. My anonymity was necessary to assure my physical safety. Even amongst my own social media circles, I saw many who posted about my case (not knowing the patient was me), oftentimes with negative connotations. Stories with facepalms and sighs. Nevertheless, I understand that they may have been misinformed and did not have the intention to hurt the patient, to hurt me.

That day, the Ministry of Health went on to call a whole press conference specifically to discuss my case followed by a lockdown. I sat on my bed wondering how I had gone from self-quarantining in my room to causing my entire nation to go into lockdown. Yes, I was in many ways responsible for my government’s decision to go into a nation-wide lockdown. At that moment I wish I had reminded myself that it could have been anyone else in my shoes. But the reality still was that it had been me. Times had become overwhelming and this story was one for the books.

Tweets and articles written about the second positive case in Nepal

Amongst all the chaos, I was, am and will always be extremely grateful to my nurses for keeping my spirits up. On the 24th of March, the nurse on duty had called me simply to say she wanted to convey the message that one of her Facebook friends was praying for me along with their entire village. Upon knowing that the nurse worked in the hospital where I was admitted, the man had requested her to let me know of this. Times like these massively raised my spirits throughout for the past three weeks. The nurses called me every now and then until the end to simply check up on how I was, even during times when it wasn’t necessary. My doctors too have shown immense kindness towards me, constantly ensuring me that everything will be ok.

~~~

If you have made it thus far thank you for making an effort into understanding my situation from my perspective today. I have recovered from all of my symptoms and after a month of landing in Nepal, have finally tested negative. Out of the majority of the people who were on my flight have been contact-traced, none were found to be infected by me. Everyone in my household also tested negative to the virus, due to cautious quarantining decisions. Lam too has fully recovered and is in good health.

I am aware that many matters have been left unsaid in this article: whether the hospital had adequate preparations, what communications between me and my doctors look like, or what kinds of medicines were provided to me. Neither have I talked about the measures I took in self-quarantine and my recovery process. However, please know I am always free to talk about any of these things and may write about many of these aspects in the future.

Finally, today my mental and physical health remains intact, due to my family’s, my doctors’, my nurses’ and my friends’ support. To those who have been aware of my situation and continuously supported me, I am largely grateful to you and everything you have done for me in the past three weeks. One thing I have grown to realize in this process is that oftentimes we disregard the mental health part of the virus. Symptoms like shortness of breath are largely capable of exacerbating one’s anxiety as well as the ignorance the public may show towards them. COVID-19 is not something to stigmatize and could happen to anyone and any given point, this is something we all have to understand. To anyone else who may find themselves in a similar situation to mine, I remain at their disposal should they wish to talk about it or have any questions and I wish them a speedy recovery.

Things We Are Afraid to Say

As the semester comes to an end, it may force us to reflect on the things we have done in the past, and things that we will do in the future. Personally, I try to judge my growth according to how I have grown as a person, and how I can positively influence the lives of the people around me. This usually entails helping or advising them to be themselves unapologetically, as we all are constantly motivated to be.

However, it becomes tough to do that when one is in a toxic environment where negative reinforcement is replaced by complacency. This toxic environment can be composed of many things: crab mentality or holding people back from achieving their full potential, allowing for ethically questionable things to take place without acting against them, or simply not being supportive and/or altruistic enough of our fellow community members to ensure their well being. This makes one question their values, and of the place they belong. Recent events on campus have brought such complacency to light.

When one gathers the courage to speak against assault, whether emotional or physical, they want to be heard. What happens then, if a community you consider as close as family almost turns a blind eye to what they constantly refer to as ‘the last straw?’ As liberals, many of us at Sciences Po regard assault, especially of the sexual kind, as extreme and if asked how we would punish a hypothetical perpetrator, will say that such a person should be punished. Most would even express feelings of disgust towards someone like this, and suggest excommunication.

Honestly, in the past month, the campus went through a trying time. Does a person on campus have to be worried about their safety against assault? More than that, must we also worry that the students of the campus might not only ignore, but publicly support perpetrators of such crime? Or the worst-case scenario, must we be worried about the preconceived notions that people have of our ‘character’ that may severely influence their opinion on whether a perpetrator is “guilty enough”?

Let me reaffirm that I am a firm believer of second chances. I believe that a person must be provided a safe space to amend their faults if they do something wrong. However, it is also important that we as a student body do not push our tolerance into complacency. We cannot be scared of doling out punishment to such perpetrators only because we may be friends with them, or simply think that they have been good people until now. This is not only for the benefit of the victim, but also the perpetrator and the Sciences Po community. Speaking out, as many of us have, against such perpetrators reaffirms the community’s belief in their values. This will also make another victim at another time more confident about themselves, and more confident that the Sciences Po community will stand by them in a time of grave damage- both physical and emotional.

While it is important to listen to both sides of an argument in such cases, it cannot stop at admittance. Just because a perpetrator may come across as apologetic does not mean that we stop there. We cannot turn a blind eye to such situations because if it happened to someone else, it may happen to you, and that is when you will want a strong community to fall back on and someone to believe you.

This is why negative reinforcement in an assault scenario is imperative to make sure that something of the sort does not happen again, and that no other person has to go home feeling unheard or lost, or both.

While we all stay in to protect ourselves from COVID-19 this summer, let’s try to think about the things we went through together on the campus this semester. Let’s think, and make sure we do not forget.

April in May

Picture: drawn by Justin Wong

4:57 am: The minute goes by painfully. I turn on my side but my eyes remain wide open. I am a distracted thinker. I feel a compulsive need to have eight different thoughts at once. At this minute, my thoughts occur to me in four different languages. Almost as if I was thinking about the uncertainties in four different ways.

My routine has collapsed. I am doing productive activities but strangely enough, I don’t feel productive. I feel unrooted, stripped of a proper goodbye. I try to shut my eyes but a voice tells me that it is sunny there. The weather becomes nice close to Easter. It’s close to 1:30 in the morning there, I am usually up.

The strange thing about uncertainties is that we try to mend them. We try to mimic our routine as much as we can, to cope, to breathe, and to feel alive. To feel normal and to reassure ourselves that eventually, everything will return to normal.

It’s a conflicting feeling, a feeling of guilt. A guilt of being in a safe place but feeling inadequate and insufficient. A guilt of privilege that, what’s keeping me up tonight is so minute compared to what people outside my tiny bubble are enduring.

Knowing this, I can not stop myself from being disoriented. My life from a few weeks ago is now a memory. Plans for the future are now ‘what could have been’. Then, there are the memories that you etch into your mind, in fear, that you may not remember the times you laughed, cried, or merely lived life without much of a care for tomorrow.

Saying goodbye is always hard but it is exceptionally so when it is not foreseen. It’s even harder when the unexpected just requires us to look closer. In Chronicles of A Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes the journey of an impending death. A death that is expected and certain, slowly creeping up on you but still surprises you. In many ways, for many of us, the sudden ending of a chapter in our lives was upon us, ever so slowly approaching but it was there. So while I try to convince my insomniac state that uncertainties are just unobserved spectacles, I think of the weather. I think of it here and there. April is upon us.

April is usually a lovely time of the year. I’ve always thought of April as the start of a new year, a new cycle. April is when nature’s cycle begins. Peeking outside my window, I wait for the sun to rise and dream of April. It’s cold outside, there is a chilly morning breeze. It’s usually warmer this time of the year. Warmer in April. I guess I’ll be searching for April in May.

On the eve of U.S. elections: Responsible politics as a tool for addressing today’s climate cris

By Natasha Raseta and Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo

Natasha Raseta is a Masters of Landscape Architecture student at University of Toronto’s Daniels Faculty of Architecture, and Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo is a Political and Social Sciences student at Sciences Po Paris Campus du Havre. They are participating in the Hart House Global Commons, an international dialogue initiative that supports student connection and engagement on global issues related to climate change facing youth.

A quick glance at the official U.S. White House website portrays a wholesome Trump Administration that has made significant, ‘never-seen-before progress’ on important national issues of today. They have focused their accomplishments on reversing unemployment rates in the United States, reclaiming “more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs” since his election in 2016. This list of accomplishments boasts the fact that they “withdrew” from ”the job-killing Paris Climate Accord”, and canceled the “so-called Clean Power Plan”. Their choice of words says a lot about their political stance on today’s climate crisis, and leaves us wondering not only why environmental efforts have not been sufficient enough, but why be so quick to deliberately oppose environmental opportunities of our future at all? After a year of climate news and strikes, let us better understand the issues in the way of more meaningful political responsibility. If we analyze the current balance sheet of environmental policy decisions made by the Trump Administration, we can reflect on more effective solutions that could increase job creation, boost the economy, and tackle the urgent threat of today’s climate crisis.

It comes not as a surprise that the current U.S. Administration carries an attitude of unjustified and uninformed denial of climate change, which has manifested through a history of concerning political decision-making. Investigation of regulatory capture in regards to Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looked into agendas covered by political appointments, rhetoric, executive orders, and restructured science advisory boards, which favours economy and job creation over mitigating the effects of climate change. One of the first important issues of today’s climate crisis involves supporting ecosystem biodiversity. The Trump Administration’s environmental record has shown a different course of action. Many laws protecting the environment that were intended to start as an energy transition initiative have been repealed. Notable examples include: the withdrawal of Paris Agreement; the dismantling of the Clean Power Plan—aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 32% by 2030; and the deconstruction of the EPA—a key piece of legislation protecting important ecological and natural land. Trump also removed climate change from national security priorities in 2017, allowing massive logging on public land a few weeks afterwards.

There are contradictions on what the Trump Administration says they are trying to achieve versus what opportunities are actually available, which leads us to question his credibility. In July 2019, Trump mentioned that his Administration found the perfect balance between economic growth and environmental protection. However, our research reveals that they have been negligent in taking environmental protection efforts into account. An article on the Trump Administration and the Environment offers advice for dealing with reductions in evidence-based policy, the constant oppression and irrelevance of scientists in environmental policy decision-making, endangering funding cuts, environmental monitoring and protection. The main take-away is that “scientific evidence does not change when the administration changes”, that “cutting funding is certain to leave uncertainties unaddressed”, and that “it would be inappropriate and potentially disastrous to pause action on mitigation” efforts in regards to environmental quality policies.

This complicated situation opens the way towards the reflection of more appropriate solutions to balancing sufficient environmental policy as well as economic and job security. If the Trump Administration were willing to invest all the energy they have used to oppose environmental policy into the creation and implementation of a circular economy, they would achieve both economic growth, stable job opportunities, and ensure the safety and wellbeing of population health. An article on the future of sustainability explains further that “when we think differently about materials, there is an economic benefit there. If you can make things from your waste stream, that’s a wonderful economic gain”. Not to mention the multitude of jobs that could be created within this process of upcycling—“in which products are made, used, and then remade and reused”. In this case, a single material source can easily be turned into new products after the life cycle of the original product. There is also emphasis placed on the creation of local jobs, which speaks more appropriately to the U.S. Administration’s accomplishments mentioned above. Re-ratifying the Paris Agreement would allow for further measures to be taken to comply with these opportunities.

The U.S. plays a key role in the deciding factors of other influential countries, and can set a more constructive example for being able to make progress on all level of the climate crisis. There is an obligation for all of us who defend politics as a fundamental means of resolving and fighting the ecological crisis. While today’s citizens are increasingly aware of their role in favour of ecology and will respond accordingly, there is also a heightened responsibility for politicians and legislators to take this lead and unite and vocalize efforts for effective protection of the finite resources available on Earth.

Qu’est-ce que je dois faire ?

By Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo

Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo est un étudiant dans sa première année à SciencesPo. Il nous fait part de sa réflexion sur les défis environnementaux et les actions que nous pourrions et devrions prendre face à une crise écologique toujours plus alarmante.

« Vous allez connaître la fin du pétrole », cet énoncé court, clair, percutant m’a énormément impacté lorsque je l’ai entendu en cours de Science Fiction. Pourtant je le savais déjà, mais très souvent on préfère oublier, cacher dans un tiroir secret ce que la conscience ne peut pas supporter par simple instinct de survie…

L’année 2019 semblait avoir laissé derrière elle les terribles feux de l’Amazonie qui ont ravagé l’équivalent de 906 000 stades de football. L’année 2020 ne commence pas mieux : les incendies en Australie persistent, la surface brûlée est plus de 18 fois supérieure à celle ayant connu le même sort en Amazonie, tout cela sans parler des 6 500 bâtiments brûlés et des 28 personnes mortes… À ce stade, le lecteur pourra penser qu’il s’agit d’un autre article ennuyant sur l’environnement qui ne cherche qu’à faire la morale. Cet article est plutôt une invitation à la réflexion sur notre action tenant compte de l’état des lieux de la vie dans notre planète, des solutions efficaces qui peuvent être menées et de la question de la responsabilité et de la volonté de résoudre cette crise écologique, tant au niveau individuel que collectif.

Abordons tout d’abord le diagnostic. En effet, il n’est pas bon! Si la simple observation et le constat empirique de l’accroissement des catastrophes naturelles sont déjà effrayants, alors le fait que la pollution soit la sixième cause de mortalité dans le monde et que l’OMS affirme que 9 personnes sur 10 respirent un air pollué, devraient nous faire paniquer. D’ailleurs, un million d’espèces animales et végétales sont menacées de disparition à cause du réchauffement climatique comme le démontre une étude dirigée par le scientifique Chris Tomas et publiée dans la revue Nature, cela entraînerait de même de graves conséquences comme une pénurie aggravée des ressources alimentaires sachant que les animaux pollinisateurs sont fondamentaux dans le processus de production d’aliments. C’est justement de cette raréfaction de ressources provoquée par l’action humaine, profondément corrélée avec notre économie, notre mode de production et le dérèglement climatique, qui est avant tout un vecteur de crises pour les êtres humains. Il s’agit donc d’un problème principal qui remettra directement en question la survie de l’espèce humaine et de nos modes de vie actuels, ainsi qu’il mettra sur la table la définition de la politique comme la gestion sociale de la précarité. Pour comprendre l’ampleur de ce dernier défi croissant, il suffit de signaler ce que les études actuelles sont en train de démontrer : tandis que nous atteindrons prochainement un pic de population d’environ dix milliards de personnes, les ressources fossiles et nucléaire sont vouées à leur épuisement aant la fin du XXIème siècle, à l’exception du charbon. De même, des métaux comme l’or, l’argent et le zinc disparaîtront avant 2050, tout comme les matériaux utilisés dans la production actuelle des énergies renouvelables tels l’indium pour les éoliennes ou le plomb et l’antimoine pour les batteries de voitures électriques. Il faut également tenir compte du fait que la production d’énergie renouvelable nécessite d’infrastructures qui sont construites grâce aux énergies fossiles. En effet, la transition énergétique ne s’est jamais faite puisque la consommation d’énergie croît tout comme le recours aux énergies fossiles qui représentent 80% des énergies produites mondialement.

Ces problèmes complexes et menaçants font appel à des solutions efficaces tant au niveau collectif qu’au niveau individuel. Je ne peux que modestement proposer au lecteur d’analyser avec lui quelques idées qui incitent à l’action concrète. Tout d’abord, il est essentiel de parler de l’agriculture relocalisée qui est une excellente mesure tant pour les agriculteurs locaux qui travaillent dans des conditions sociales dignes que pour la prospérité du corps et de la planète. En effet, j’ai pu vérifier lorsque je faisais mon TPE sur la production écologique de papaye à Malaga que la consommation de produits agricoles locaux peut être mille fois moins polluante que la consommation de produits importés – notamment ceux qui proviennent du Canada après la signature du CETA – mais qu’il est de même crucial que le choix de cultiver certaines espèces végétales respecte les conditions de terrain et de météorologie locales. Ainsi, en tant que citoyen responsable et consciencieux, acheter des produits aux AMAP du Havre est une attitude à encourager. D’autre part, la plantation massive d’arbres peut permettre de stocker l’excès de dioxyde de carbone atmosphérique dans les forêts, mais cette solution ne peut être que temporaire car la mort des arbres provoque une libération de carbone qui, par oxydation, repasse à l’atmosphère sous forme de CO2. Ceci étant dit, il est indispensable, en tant que bon citoyen, de promouvoir cette solution qui, bien que temporaire, est nécessaire, notamment par l’utilisation du moteur de recherche Ecosia: une démarche plutôt simple. De même, manifester pour le climat, s’engager dans des projets écologiques, adopter des modes de vie plus respectueux de l’environnement sont des actes indispensables si l’on veut véritablement résoudre la situation de crise écologique et existentielle à laquelle nous faisons face.

En ce qui concerne les solutions que peuvent apporter les Etats, il y a un répertoire de propositions chiffrées disponible sur le site Project Drawdown, parmi lesquelles la construction d’éoliennes s’avère une solution efficace du point de vue environnemental, en plus d’être très rentable avec un rapport de 1 à 6 entre dépenses et bénéfices sur le long-terme. Parmis les solutions proposées, on retrouve la réduction du gaspillage alimentaire, l’éducation des filles dans le monde ou encore l’interdiction mondiale de l’utilisation du HFC dans les appareils réfrigérants selon un amendement du Protocole de Montréal, par exemple. La piézoélectricité, bien qu’en phase expérimentale, est une autre idée innovante qui pourrait permettre la récupération d’énergie à partir du contact et de la pression de nos pieds lorsque nous marchons ainsi que des voitures. Les Etats devront aussi investir massivement pour mettre en place l’économie de l’avenir. Sachant que la décroissance ne peut qu’être une phase transitoire entre notre modèle économique actuel et un autre que beaucoup nomment déjà l’économie circulaire, basée sur le triptyque: réduire, recycler, réutiliser. Des prémices de ce nouveau modèle sont déjà visibles dans l’Union Européenne mais aussi dans certains pays asiatiques à l’instar de la Chine, notamment avec la loi de 2008 sur la promotion de l’économie circulaire. Ici en Normandie, nous avons un bon exemple d’une des idées phare de l’économie circulaire qu’est la méthanisation, et qui, dans notre cas, permet de récupérer de l’énergie électrique et thermique à partir de dizaines de milliers de tonnes de déchets organiques, qui sont ainsi revalorisées.

Enfin, au-delà des défis immenses et des solutions souhaitables, une question émerge. C’est celle de notre volonté et de notre responsabilité. Peut-on qualifier un gouvernement de responsable alors que certaines mesures en faveur de l’environnement coexistent avec le refus de fermer des centrales de charbon ou avec le maintien de certains perturbateurs endocriniens extrêmement nocifs pour notre santé ? C’est de cette hypocrisie dont nous devons réfléchir nous-mêmes dans un souci de cohérence. Si la vie sur Terre est une priorité ou un devoir pour nous, alors nos actes doivent démontrer la responsabilité écologique qu’est la nôtre et que nous ressentons, c’est-à-dire que nos actions concrètes doivent être respectueuses et engagées vis-à-vis de l’environnement, le cas contraire cela signifierait que nous n’avons pas de véritable volonté de préserver la vie sur notre planète. La vie est-elle suffisamment importante pour nous pour que nos actions et notre volonté soient en compatibilité avec elle ?