The solution is SO obvious: test everyone!!

Pretty well everyone with any knowledge has been saying it, so I might as well add my non-scientific voice: why isn't EVERYONE being tested? Then those with the right antibodies to be immune from coronavirus can go back to work, and those who don't can be told to continue self-isolating. Two strict divisions in society. It might of course lead to a strange imbalance in the way the country works: ie some restaurants able to open for business and not others, some schools returning to normal teaching, others not. But somehow this country has to get back to normal but in stages and the only way to do that is to test test test. It is beyond me that this was not the policy from the very beginning, especially when other countries, notably South Korea and Germany, did just that and proved it was the right course to take. Every day the UK government says more testing will take place although the focus understandably is on health workers. But it seems the UK can't lay its hands on enough testing kit. Again, why the hell not? Like in the Second World War when factories sprouted everywhere to keep the munitions production lines working 24 hours a day, there should be companies in every county designing and producing test equipment with government money backing them. Everyone in this country should get a chance to know if they are positive, negative or imumune. By everyone of course I mean those who have a job to go back to or who can be trained to fulfill a useful purpose to get this country back on its feet soon. When this is all over, the biggest question will be: did the government do enough and early enough to save the country from financial ruin and to help the NHS to survive under such immense pressures? I don't know what the annswer is right now, other than to observe that it seeems to have taken the powers-that-be an inordinately long time to get round to the realisation that testing is the answer. There are fewer deaths in Germany. Why? Because of mass testng. South Korea is now over the worst. Why? Because of mass testing. It's the way forward for every country. Then we can all start to dismisss any notion that the virus is going to go on destroying every nation on the planet for another six months or so. The whole world needs a huge injection of positive news, not positive coronavirus results.

Choice of words from virus officials so crucial

The UK's deputy chief medical officer Jenny Harries was standing at the press conference lectern to dish out the latest predictions on the coronavirus pandemic. She declared that we could not expect to return to normal life in the next three to six months and that some restrictions would have to remain for that period. Six months! SIX MONTHS!! Why on earth did she have to come up with that timescale so casually? Does she actually know what she is talking about or just being over cautious and talking of worst case? And, most important of all, did she have any idea how the media would react to that statement? Did anyone warn her about choosing her words carefully and not to be led into making any sort of time prediction? It seems not. Either that or she ignored the advice from the Cabinet Office PRs. Her statement was yesterday. Today the headlines on the front pages of the newspapers all shouted that we faced another six months of lockdown! No life for a further six months!!! That's into October. The reaction for every newspaper reader must have been the same. Oh God how can we put up with this for another six months. Not one single newspaper so far as I could see had a headline saying it was going to be three months, but possibly six months. Everyone went for SIX MONTHS. This is how newspapers work. They always ALWAYS take the top-end figure. If an official says three to six, newspapers will say six. If an official says we could have between 10,000 deaths and 20,000, every headline will say 20,000. Or, if you're lucky, up to 20,000. I am not knocking newspapers, it's my profession. I'm just stating the reality, that's the way it works. So, Dr Harries, you and your colleagues in the prediction business working for the government or the NHS have to be honest but not brutally so. Amid the gloom we all need a little optimism. So perhaps this is what Dr Harries should have said: "The government will make a decision in two weeks, as it said it would, about whether we need to extend the three-week social distancing instructions. The two metre rule. I don't want to preempt the government's decision but obviously, as I'm sure you are all aware, we have to take steps to stop this virus from spreading and overwhelming our NHS. For that reason it is unlikely that we can just return to normal pre-virus life in the near future. I cannot and will not predict how long this may all last. Hopefully the peak of the virus will be reached soon and then the pressure on the NHS can be reduced. But one step at a time." First reporter asks: "How long can we expect the lockdown to last?" Her answer should have been: "As I said, I'm not in the business of predicting but for the foreseeable future we may have to put up with some form of restrictions. But that is a matter for the government to decide and to announce in due course. Thank you, I'm afraid I now have to leave." Headlines the next day? Perhaps: Medical official warns of lockdown for foreseeable future. It's still not accurate because she didn't say "lockdown" but it's a helluva lot better than SIX MONTHS!!!

Coronavirus battle between health and personal rights

Each day our way of life - normal pre-coronavirus life -is changing dramatically. Here in UK Boris Johnson has written to every household to say tougher measures might be needed. How much tougher can they get in a democracy such as ours? Some police forces in the country are already being over-enthusiastic with their new powers, hailing people daring to sit on the grass in the parks and ordering them to get up and go home, sending drones to spot anyone walking in remote areas and warning lone dog-walkers to hurry up and return home, and, amazingly, setting up checkpoints on busy roads and stopping drivers to ask what the hell they think they're doing engaged in a non-exercise means of mobility. Richmond Park, unquestionably the most wonderful of all the parks in London, is closed to vehicle traffic which is good but also shut for cyclists which is over-the-top. Will they ban walkers next because of the risk of bottlenecks of people at the entrances? If people want to engage in the one-exercise-a-day government-approved walk or cycle ride they should be allowed to do so, and the parks are the best places to do it when living in a city. Boris's warning that more measures might be on the way hints at a stay-at-home all day edict except for perhaps 15 minutes allowed to walk around the block. I don't know what he has in mind but the population is going to go house-bound crazy if exercise and fresh air are banned. Everyone will turn to eating to stave off the boredom and we will all get fat and unhealthy. There has to be a balance between taking sensible health measures and ensuring that the people of this nation and of any nation hang on to a semblance of their old life even if it can't involve eating in restaurants and pubs, playing golf or tennis or hugging members of the family living elsewhere. At some point we will all have to go back to normal life, yet now one of the UK government's chief scientific advisers, Professor Paul Ferguson, is yet again promoting worst-case scenario images: being stuck in lockdown until June is his latest suggestion. Come on, stop making depressing predictions, with threats of even more limits to our lives, and come up with solutions/antidotes/treatments that will bring this nightmare to an end.

Self-isolation, now the most-used word in the Engish language

It wasn't that long ago when I first read the word self-isolation in a newspaper and thought it to be a somewhat odd and rather silly description. Now, with millions of people around the world forced into isolation, either "self" at home, as demanded by most governments, or in intensive care in hospital. Self-isolation as a word it seems we're stuck with for months. When coronavirus finally leaves the planet, please God for a long time or, better still, for ever, we will all burst forth from our hibernation and start hugging everyone in the streets just to prove that humankind is not going to be cowed by a sinister, cowardly, malignant disease trying to destroy our lives. Self-isolation seemed almost a joke at the beginning as doctors and scientific experts struggled to come up with the best way forward to combat the virus. Now, with our prime minister Boris Johnson self-isolating in his flat above Number 11 Downing Street and Matt Hancock, health secretary, doing likewise at his home, AND Professor Chris Whitty, chief medical officer, in the same boat, the whole concept of normal government is coming to an end. The prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland operating all alone in his flat, trying to run the country while his meals are served up on a tray and left outside his "office" door. It is a bewilderingly bizarre situation. He can do it with all the appropriate telecommunication paraphernalia, but what if he has days when he is feeling really bad with a high temperature? Hopefully for Boris this won't happen and the virus will treat him kindly so that he can function as prime minister without having to turn to Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, to take up the reins of office. But from the mass of reports of how coronavirus has hit so many people with excrutiating sore throats, blinding headaches, hot and cold fevers and, worst of the lot, severe breathing problems, one can only hope and pray that those with huge responsibilities for governing this country - and other countries - suffer only mild symptoms if they prove coronavirus positive. There is nothing worse than trying to carry on working, especially in a job of high stress, if you are feeling terrible with a burning headache. Please God at some point soon the word self-isolation can go back to where it belongs, as one of the most under-used words in the English language.

Coronavirus takes on the US military

MY story not used n The Times today: The US defence secretary has issued an unprecedented “stop movement order”, cancelling planned deployments overseas and home-returns for American troops completing their tour s of duty to avoid further spreading of coronavirus. The total workforce of three million uniformed and civilian Pentagon employees are already governed by social distancing restrictions where possible, with mobility and training limits within the US. However, following the announcement by Mark Esper, travel plans for about 90,000 American troops have been put on hold for 30 days. America’s military history is a reminder of the risks posed by large troop deployments in potentially dangerous health conditions. In the autumn of 1918 at the end of the First World War an influenza pandemic claimed thousands of American lives as the virus spread from camp to camp in the US and across the Atlantic. The most notable exception to Mr Esper’s order were the 4,400 troops in Afghanistan earmarked to withdraw as part of the US-Taliban peace deal signed on February 29. The US troop strength in Afghanistan has to be cut from 13,000 to 8,600 within a timescale of 135 days. Mr Esper said the pull-out which has already begun would continue as agreed. About 600 active personnel as well as civilians, dependents and contractors have been tested positive so far. However, the challenge faced by the US navy which currently has 100 warships and other vessels at sea has been underlined by the evacuation of eight sailors from the carrier, USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Pacific. They tested positive, forcing the navy to trace all other members of the crew who had been in contact with them. The carrier is now in port in Guam while all 5,000 on board are tested. There are reports of another dozen or so with the virus. Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, said every effort was being made to “isolate and contain” the spread of the virus on the carrier which had been on a port visit about 16 days ago. On the challenge of enforcing social distancing for his three million employees, many of whom had no option but to work closely together, Mr Esper said: “I can’t put out a blanket policy that I would apply to everybody because every situation is different.” “Tell me how to do 6ft distancing in an attack submarine [with a crew of 135]? And how to do it in a bomber with two pilots sitting side by side?” he said. The US Army’s largest exercise in Europe for 25 years, intended to involve 17,000 troops flying in from America, has already been drastically curtailed. The planned joint US exercise with South Korea was also cancelled in February.

There is no Churchill but the Blitz spirit is alive and well

It's probably the same everywhere on this planet, the sense of hardy determination to defeat this coronavirus pandemic, if not with actual safety and health measures then at least with a spirit of "We're all together in the Blitz" sort of situation. Here in UK, neighourhoods are helping each other with Whatsapp messages offering to buy groceries for the older members in the street, people are striding out into the sunshine for their daily approved exercise, and self-isolating faces appear in windows and hands wave. All of which is good for morale and lifting the spirits. We know this sort of morale-boosting is also going on in other countries such as Italy and France and Spain, with people clapping every evening from open windows to thank the doctors and nurses who are helping to save virus sufferers. Clapping from windows and front doors is going to happen here in the UK tonight for the same reason. I anticipate a tumultuous sound similar to when a concert pianist or violinist completes a wondrous performance of Beethoven or Mozart. While the Blitz spirit is comforting, the planet needs in the next few weeks a burst of good news: the promise of an antidote to coronavirus much sooner than the sober 12-18 months prediction of our weary-looking medical experts, a dramatic drop in deaths from the virus and inspiring leadership from our political masters. Despite a horribly cynical opinion column in the New York Times today which claims Boris Johnson is a disaster and out of his depth, I think he has done well. He may have been a slow starter but then most leaders were the same, not reacting with adequate instant control but forced eventually to bring in the toughest of measures. Boris speaks well, he looks as if he is totally aware of his responsibilities as prime minister, there is no spin from the lectern when he gives his daily press briefing, and his words are both forceful but calming. Prime Minister Boris is doing a good job. But please, Mr Prime Minister, don't make the mistake of trying to turn into Winston Churchill, the leader he admires most and would no doubt love to emulate in this battle against coronavirus. Just be Boris. The same goes for Donald Trump. He loves to talk about him being a wartime president. This is simply not the case. It's a fight against a virus that requires masterful leadership but Churchill? No sir, he is not a Churchill. But he is definitely a Trump and his ups and downs in this crisis have been staggering to behold. He is, understandably, terrified that the virus will destroy the US economy and, therefore, his chances of being reelected in November. So he is hedging his bets, taking drastic action but determined to make it short-lived so, as he says, America can get back to normal with a bang. Fifty per cent of the American people, according to the latest polls, approve of what he is doing. And 50 per cent don't. While 50 per cent is pretty good for a president who has been in power for more than three years, it is not good enough when the country is facing the worst health crisis since the 1918 influenza pandemic. If Trump is going to win reelection, he will need to inspire the whole country through this crisis. That seems a very remote possibility because of the way he is. Some of his press briefings have collapsed into media-hating tirades. Boris has avoided that - being a journalist himself - and I don't think Churchill went all anti-press. At this time political leaders need their nations on their side. Boris I believe is trying his best to unify the country, Trump I'm not so sure.

Always look on the bright side of life

A Thames River police patrol tug has been going up and down broadcasting a message to all Londoners. No, not "Get back into your houses" or "You'll be arrested if you remain on the streets", but "Always look on the bright side of life", the jolly little ditty sung by Eric Idle in Monty Python. Now that's a community service I like, well done chaps. We need a lot more of this over the next few weeks. The apocalyptic statistics being trotted out every hour by well-meaning but doom-laden ministers, doctors and TV presenters, have helped create the picture that we are all going to be stricken with coronavirus and that our lives are going to be ruined by an economic crash. And every time someone famous gets the virus, such as Prince Charles, announced today, we all think to oursleves, "If someone as privileged as him can get it, we are all doomed." Well, after the jolly boating song by the Thames River police - give them medals - I think it's time to find some silver linings in the black clouds hovering over everyone. The most optimistic story I have read today appeared in The Times, and it was about a research unit in Oxford University which has looked at the statistics and done its own modelling and come up with a startling conclusion: that maybe coronavirus has actually been around in the UK - and thus perhaps elsewhere in Europe and the United States - since January and that huge numbers of people have already had it but without realising it because the symptoms were mild and felt like a cold or flu. And if that's the case, then maybe 50 per cent of the population is aready immune from the virus because it has gone through their bodies without them noticing. AND, if that assumption is true, it means this nationwide social distancing is not really necessary. But the only way this can be proved is if the government starts a mass anti-body testing programme which seems unlikely. The governments here in UK and certainly in the US as well haven't got any kind of mass testing going on at all and they appear to be incable of launching one. Unlike in South Korea where nationwde testing has been carried out with highly effective results. I hope Boris and co will look at this Oxford University research and react to it by starting testing on a huge scale. But don't tell Trump because he will order all businesses to get back to work immediately and start calling the coronavirus a hoax aimed at ruining the US economy. The Oxford University research should be taken seriously because it offers a glimmer of hope for us all instead of having to listen every day to gloom and doom. Always look on the bright side of life!!

How long is this coronavirus pandemic going to last?

At what point are all the experts in every country on this planet going to agree that the coronavirus crisis is over? If you're in China and South Korea, then the answer is a little more encouraging. Having had the virus since November, the signs are that the worst is over in China and very slowly people are getting back to a degree of normality. In South Korea, the number of deaths is also coming down. Even in Italy the fatality rate is slowing. So let's say the minimum period for the virus to be at its worst is four months. For the United States and for Europe, it is therefore possible that by July, the spiralling death statistics will have dropped significantly and the lockdowns can be lifted. That's still a long time and potentially disastrous for businesses but we all need to have a date, a rough date, when this nightmare could be over. I note that General Mark Milley, the very serious-looking chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked how long it was going to go on for, plucked July from the top of his head. What he was really saying was that it was likely to last for several more months rather than a few weeks. This kind of clashes with Donald Trump who has been far more optimistic about when the virus nightmare will be over and doesn't want to order a total shutdown of the country. If he's lucky he might get away with it. But places like New York City where the virus is raging, a lockdown is unavoidable. If you're running the US military, like General Milley and his political boss, Mark Esper, then virus casualties and timescales are absolutely crucial. If tens of thousands of US servicemen and women go down with the virus, and much worse, if even five per cent die as a result, then the consequences could be alarming. But the statistics so far are not overwhelming. As of today there have been 300 coronavirus cases among American service personnel, civilians and service families and one defence contractor has died. The Pentagon employs around three million people, uniformed and non-uniformed. So the percentage is very small. In the US as a whole more than 46,000 Americans are known to have caught the virus, and nearly 600 have died out of a population of about 330 million. So, again, not a big percentage. It's the same in the UK although much attention has been focused on rising cases in London, partly because of the packed Underground trains. The UK death toll so far is 422. In Italy it's more than 6,000. In China it is nearly 3,300. India is in lockdown, but how can you lock down a country like India with 1.3 billion people? But however bad the statistics look, the virus will go away eventually, and at some point there will be an antidote. So let's be optimistic and look forward to that putative end date of July. General Milley seems to believe that timescale. Let's hope he's right.

Is the cure worse than the virus?

Donald Trump has tweeted that he doesn't want the cure for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic to be worse than the disease itself. The trouble is if, as president or prime minister, you decide to go for half measures only in the hope that the virus will go away, the likelihood is that the virus will win. Nobody really knows what's going to happen, everyone's making predictions, some dire and some more optimistic, but there is no one in the universe who knows everything and can tell us exactly how this is going to pan out. Trump seems to believe that it will be a matter of weeks before the measures he and state governors have taken will bear fruit. Just like they did in China and South Korea. As newspapers are saying each day, the Chinese are beginning to emerge from their hibernation and return to more normal life. So there is hope that perhaps by the end of May or June things will be better in the UK and throughout Europe, now regarded as the epicentre of the virus. But, here in Britain, that optimistic prediction only has a sporting chance of becoming reality if everyone conforms to the government guidelines. Meanwhile, it's better to do everything necessary now to combat the virus, and that includes restrictig everyone's liberty, if we are to shake off this nightmare, like the Chinese have done. What will then be of greatest concern will be the livelihoods of the millions whose future financial status is currently looking doomladen. They will need help, credit and a generosity of spirit. If the virus, even once it has gone, goes on to destroy small businesses and the self-employed, as well as some of the major companies, such as airlines, then Trump's reservations about being too harsh in curbing the spread of the virus may prove to be sound. Boris in the UK is also trying to play it both ways, sounding tough and promising tougher measures but just willing the virus away before the economy of the country is truly shattered. Let us hope that by the summer we are all going to be able to breathe more freely, and of course I am totally including everyone who has fallen victim to coronavirus and who are now having treatment at home or in a hospital.

Is the population rebelling against draconian anti-coronavirus measures?

This weekend here where I live in London there has been a rush, I would say a mad rush to enjoy the sunshine in the parks. Literally thousands of people are flocking into the parks in their cars, causing long traffic jams and all entering the open green spaces like the Biblical gadarene swine. Social distancing? Hardly. Family groups with grandparents, parents and grandchildren walking together in the sunshine, laughing and joking. There is a degree of mad rebellion in this display. I suspect there is also an element of "Well it isn't going to happen to me, so let's enjoy the sunshine and fresh air." It's understandable but is it wise? Boris Johnson appealed to the nation to abide by the social distancing guidelines but this is so alien to anything we have had to endure in the past it is difficult to obey the rules. I don't recall any social distancing orders in previous virus scares, like Mad Cow's disease or Foot and Mouth or Sars or flu for heaven's sake. So how do you convince people who are desperate to stay as normal as possible that they must behave in a totally abnormal way? Judging by this weekend, it's impossible. Pictures of long queues of traffic in the gorgeous countryside of Snowdonia are proof enough that the average family is just not willing to stay indoors all day every day. And yet this is what life is like in other countries, Latin America for example, where everyone is being ordered to stay in their homes. No one is allowed to go walking or have bike rides or sit on the beach. In Britain, people talk about the Blitz and the wartime spirit but, as Boris has tried to point out, this hidden virus has no respect for humans and a Blitz spirit if it involves ignoring health guidelines could just spur the virus to seek more victims. Frankly I don't know what the answer is.

Is it right to call the pandemic the Wuhan virus?

Blaming China for the coronavirus pandemic which has hit pretty well every country in the world has become a very public verbal war game. Trump started it by referring to the virus as the China virus. Then Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, started to call it the Wuhan virus. That seriously angered the Chinese government which called Pompeo's remark despicable. Beijing even said it was possible the virus began, not in China, but somewhere else, like the United States perhaps. Pompeo responded by saying, somewhat mysteriously, that the US was pretty confident where the virus had begun its life. China, yes, Wuhan, yes but where in Wuhan exactly? Is there any tiny chance that the rumours circulating some weeks ago that a coronavirus leak may have taken place at the Wuhan biological defence laboratory outside the city may have some substance to it? A leak of the virus which IS tested at the Wuhan laboratory has been widely debunked by knowing scientists. But Pompeo's remark, especially coming from a former director of the CIA, seemed to be hinting at something other than the explanation put out when it all began, that the virus came from wild animals being sold in food markets in Wuhan. The National Bio-Safety Laboratory at Wuhan, also called the Wuhan Institute of Virology, deals with deadly viruses such as coronavirus. It's run by Chen Wei, a major-general in the People's Liberation Army. No one in the Trump administration has suggested that this laboratory may have leaked the deadly virus by mistake. But Pompeo's choice of words was clearly deliberate. The first the world knew about new coronavirus was when it emerged in Wuhan. So calling it the Wuhan virus was techically accurate unless Beijing can come up with proof that it began in another country and was imported into Wuhan. Mind you, I'm not sure the world would believe China if it claimed it had evidence the virus came into Wuhan via a foreign carrier. For now the dead animals theory is the one that most people seem to be believing. And somehow, frightening though the pandemic is, the speculation that the virus could have leaked out from a top secret biological laboratory would be even more scary. I hope the Chinese are telling us the truth and nothing but the truth.

Rich US senators sell sell sell just before coronavirus pandemic went wild!!

At a time of national and global crisis it is always galling to hear that certain privileged sections of society have somehow managed to save their investments because they were in the know, or at least more in the know about what was about to happen than 99 per cent of the rest of the us. So there has been an outcry over the disclosure that certain US senators who had been receiving classified briefings on the likelihood of an imminent financial disaster as a result of the coronavirus crisis went out and sold huge stocks of shares in their investment portfolios to make sure they were protected from a Wall Street crash. If they took such action solely as a result of being given insider information that would not only be morally wrong, it would be unlawful because Congress regulations state quite clearly that privileged information cannot be exploited for personal gain. The main focus of attention seems to be on Senator Richard Burr, Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who reportedly sold between $628,000 and $1.72 million worth of shares on February 13. This was one week before the stock market started to plummet. Senator Burr has denied that he sold the shares as a result of classified briefings but based his judgment solely on reading the newspapers. He has wisely referred the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee to try and prove his innocence. I have no idea whether Senator Burr is clever enough or disciplined enough to compartmentalise information he received as a result of his position as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and push it to one side of his brain while reading the newspapers and coming to a conclusion about the need to sell his shares based only on the latter (the newspapers) and not remotely on the former (the compartmentalised bit in his brain). I am sure Senator Burr is an honourable man but can he really say that it was not an accumulation of facts and predictions from everywhere, including those classified briefings, that played a part in his decision-making? It's probably impossible to know. Well, he knows of course. But impossible for the Ethics Committee to decide. There would have been millions of people tryng to make the same judgment before selling shares in the week leading up to the stock market plundering, and there WAS a lot of reporting, warning of possible trouble ahead. But the newspaper reports and TV reports were just that. They weren't based on insider knowledge, insider government knowledge. But it will never be proved. All I know is that the relatively modest amount of investments I have, looked after by one of the most reputable and knowledgeable investment companies in existence, has dropped in value by an alarming amount in the last few months. Definitely no insider knowledge there. I am not happy about it, and not particularly inspired by the revelation that a senator, and three others apparently, saved their bacon with a very very astute nick-of-time stocks sale. I'm just envious really but there is a twitch of suspicion.

Pompeo advises all Americans to come home from abroad! How?

Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, must be living in cloud cuckoo land. He has made an edict that all Americans currently overseas sbould come home immediately. Durrr!! They'd love to but they can't. There are thousands of American citizens and Green Card holders totally stuck in foreign countries because there is absolutely no way of getting home. Airports are closed, borders are closed and in some places such as Latin America everyone, foreign and locals are being ordered to stay at home and not come out. In Lima for example truckloads of armed police are going around with megaphones ordering people to stay indoors. So how, Mr Secretary of State, can your citizens get out of all these countries unless you go and rescue them. But the US administration has made it clear that that is not going to happen. OK they did it for Americans stranded in China but that, they say, was different because that is where it all started and no one then had a clue that the virus (the C virus standing for corona or China depending on your point of view) was going to go worldwide. Now the virus is everywhere on the planet, Americans should not be expected to be picked up by chartered rescue planes, Washington has said. So these people are on their own. It's the same for Brits. If they can't get flights out back to UK then hard cheese. They have to stay where they are until the virus crisis has died down. And when precisely will that be? July, August, December, 18 months? This is a problem which is going to have to be dealt with by governments. If stranded nationals abroad have nowhere to stay except in expensive hotels, a lot of people are going to start freaking out and emptying their bank accounts. I'm sure that if US or British diplomats abroad needed to be returned home for their safety or out of medical necessity, their respective governnments would rustle up chartered planes and bring them back. So that's what both the US and UK governments should do. Persuade the foreign governments to open up airports for emergency flights and bring your people home. It's bad enough being told to stay at home when it's your own home, but being told to stay in Guatemala or Peru or Bolivia or Vietnam or Indonesia until the virus has gone means potentially months away from home and family and job and any sense of security. This is a dilemma which is going to get worse by the day. And it doesn't help to say the least for Pompeo to put out a message to all Americans abroad, "Come home".

Bernie will have to accept the inevitable and drop out

It is a little surprising that Bernie Sanders is still intent on hanging on in the race for the White House. Some of his advisers are telling him to stay and I guess the reasoning is this: if Biden wins the nomination, all the efforts made towards changing the United States into a caring, sharing, welfare-rich country will go by the way side if a centrist politician is in charge. There is no way Joe Biden will suddenly become socialist-minded in order to grab Sanders' supporters even though he has made comforting noises, such as "I'm hearing you." I hate that expression in the political context because it doesn't mean what it sounds like. Biden is just trying to woo socialist-favouring voters to his side by hinting that he will take on board Bernie's hopes and dreams. But that's not the way it works. If you come second, you are nothing else but the runner-up who lost. Why should Biden change his views to be nice to Bernie? Well, actually it would be wonderfully sensible if Biden DID absorb some Bernie ideas into his campaign messages. But on the other hand if the majority of voters don't want a Bernie Utopia, then there's not much point in trying to go half measures, a bit of Joe and a bit of Bernie to try and please everyone. Compromises like that rarely work, although Biden has suggested Bernie's Medicare for all has merits. All of this, of course, is somewhat peripheral right now because of the spread of coronavirus. So much federal money is being allocated to combat it and cushion the impact by pumping money into the economy that high-flown ideas about a socialist health system on the lines of the UK's national health service will get shunted to one side. While one can sympathise with Bernie Sanders who has to resign himself to never being president of the United States, it must be time for him to confront reality and drop out of the race and give his backing to Joe Biden. As I wrote in a previous blog, the Democrats probably have a better chance than ever before of unseating a sitting president, largely because of coronavirus and its apalling economic consequences. So a continuing Biden/Sanders battle makes little sense. Joe is now the man, the chosen one, and the Democrats as a whole need to get behind him. Then everyone can focus on the Joe and Donald battle.

Will the world change after coronavirus has gone? No no no!

There is much talk about how the world will never be the same after the coronavirus has finally left this planet. It will be a defining moment in history. Well I don't agree. I think the world will carry on as before, coronavirus will soon be forgotten, the pubs and restaurants will fill up once again, postponed weddings will be reinstated, holiday travel will boom and politicians will go back to their normal business. Here in UK Brexit will once again be the word on everyone's lips. No one will remember COVID-19, and Dr Chris Whitty, UK chief medical officer, constantly on the TV with his worthy pronouncements, will return to obscurity and become unrecognisable in the street. Coronavirus is bad, it's terrible, it's ruining everything right now but when it's over we will get on with our lives and coronavirus or COVID-19 can go hang. I recall that when 9/11 happened every commentator around the world said it would also be a defining moment in history and that the world would be changed for ever. So many people said this that I believed it too. How could the United States ever truly recover from such a catastrophic terrorist attack? This was certainly Osama bin Laden's belief and hope. He expected that the killing of nearly 3,000 people and the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers in New York would destroy America's economy, fatally undermine the morale of the people and turn the US into a second-rate nation. It wasn't true. It was never going to be true. It was the greatest of shocks to a great nation but just watching the firemen courageously doing their job under the most appallingly dangerous conditions inspired everyone and surely made us all believe eventually that the US would rise up and be as strong as ever and that the terrorists would never ever destroy the country. Bin Laden was just a terrorist. He wasn't an evil prophet capable of bringing a nation to its knees. It's the same with coronavirus. We will get through it, it will get worse and we will be frightened for ourselves and for our families and friends but it will go away and life will return to normal. We may think hard about what normal should be and it just might make some political leaders comprehend the fragility of this planet and that we need to take care of it but I refuse to believe that somehow we will all be different when the virus has slunk away back into wherever it came from. No, we will all be resilient and joyful and happy and get on with life. Climate change we can't get rid of without drastic action, but scientists will find a cure for coronavirus or whatever comes our way in the future. So please, no more of this oh my God the world will never be the same.

Donald Trump is in deep trouble and Joe Biden is waiting in the wings

There is now an odds-on possiblity that the coronavirus will skewer Donald Trump's hopes/expectations of being reelected in November. For the first time since he entered the White House I really do believe that his chances of having a second term are currently only 50-50 and may be even 40-60. It's not so much Joe Biden's sudden political momentum, although that is a factor. It's the coronavirus pandemic. The virus is not Trump's fault, obviously, but the public's perception of his management of the crisis is everything and right now the perception is that he is confused, with hs mixed messages, his initial dismissal of the seriousness of it, his late conversion and then, predictably, his accusation that the media and fake news are stirring it up to undermine what he is trying to do. Well, no leader in the world is perfect, everyone to a certain extent is flapping around trying to make the right decisions. But if the president of the United States doesn't seem to know what he is doing then he cannot expect to waltz back into the White House after the November 3 election. His first public statement about measures to be taken was so dreadful and inaccurate that it was almost as if someone had mischievously mucked around with the autocue. Since that moment in the Oval Office Trump hasn't really improved things. Slapping a ban on all flights from the European mainland, then two days later including the UK and Ireland in the ban but telling all Americans wandering the streets of Paris, Rome and Florence etc that they could come back no problem, had exactly the opposite effect. American nationals panicked and grabbed the first flight back to the US in case Trump closed the airport gates altogether. So tens of thousands of Americans started arriving at airports around the country to find that everyone had to be questioned, have their temperature taken and other stuff and the delays were mammoth. Some waited up to ten hours to get back into the country. Trump spoke without, it seems, arranging for airports to have extra staff to cope. Chaos is never a good word when dealing with a national crisis, especially when it involves a horrible disease that is floating around for everyone to catch. All these Americans just wanted to get home where they would feel safe. But the authorities appeared to be reluctant to let them in. Trump will be blamed. Governors were furious because they said the federal authorities should have preplanned everything and should have provided more staff. That's a bit of a cop-out by the governors in my view but the fact is the easiest thing to do is not to accept responsibility but to blame someone else. And it's Trump because he's the president. It's the same in the UK. Boris is being blamed by everyone, especially in every capital around the world, for failing to follow everyone else's example and doing things totally differently. So no ban on mass gatherings and no closure of schools etc. But Boris took these decision based on scientific data. If the scientific data proves to be dodgy or just plain wrong, then Boris will be blamed. That's life. But Boris doesn't have to worry about being reelected anytime soon. He's safe for another four and a half years unless there is a parliamentary majority vote of no confidence in his government. But that's not going to happen. Trump on the other hand has less than eight months to prove to the American people that he is taking all the right decisions on the virus and on the economy. It's not looking good for him at the moment, and Joe Biden is starting to look presidential. But then he can say what he likes about the virus and the way to handle it because he is not in charge of anything. I never thought I would say it, but President Joe Biden, 46th holder of the office, seems pretty likely.

The over-70s to go into hibernation. It's squirrel time!

If it wasn't so serious I would be laughing right now. The UK Government wants all people over the age of 70 to self-isolate in their homes for FOUR MONTHS!!! That's what squirrels do when they hibernate, and hedgehogs. So anyone who has reached the age of 70, however fit and healthy he or she is, has to be locked away at home and not emerge into the sunlight until the late summer. Are you kidding me? No one should have their lives just stopped in its tracks just like that. One minute the government wants at least 60 per cent of the population to get the virus in order to produce a herd immunity the next time coronavirus visits us and now they want all old people off the streets because it's frightfully inconvenient to have, theoretically, the most vulnerable members of the community living in the outside world because of the strain it puts on the National Health Service if they get ill. If you're sitting round the Cabinet table in 10 Downing Street and some clever dick comes up with the idea re old folk, you can see everyone nodding their heads and thinking "hey that's a good idea, get them off the streets as quickly as possible. What do you reckon, four months, six months, a couple of years?" Older people are mostly sensible and realistic and will already be taking every precaution to keep well and not mix too much. And anyway, a helluva lot of older people are now fighting fit, run marathons, stay working, do parachute jumps etc. So being ordered to stay indoors for four months just because a man or woman with greying hair is viewed as a potential higher risk of catching the virus and not recovering is a giant bootstep too far. As I said, if it wasn't a serious proposal it would be laughable. Oher countries, Italy and Spain for example, are literally shut down. Everyone is told to stay at home. But that's everyone and it's for two weeks. That might be acceptable here in the UK. The US seems to be getting more and more alarmed with infection cases rising rapidly, but I'm not aware of Trump, who of course is over 70, dictating to all Americans of his age and above to self-isolate for a long period. Joe Biden would have to go into long-term quarantine. So too Bernie Sanders. And Nancy Pelosi and some of those ancient Supreme Court judges. The presidential election campaign will have to be postponed. Trump will stay on as president after November! The mind boggles. This is ageism taken too far.

Coronavirus U-turns! Calm down everyone

It took precisely 48 hours for Donald Trump to change his mind and do a U-turn on Brits and Irish being allowed to fly to the US anytime they liked. It always looked odd to say the least that Trump made an exception of the US and Ireland when he stopped all flights from the European mainland to the US. His reasoning, in the case of the UK, was that Boris was doing a fine job in taking measures to counter coronavirus. Well, that may or may not be true but it still doesn't explain why Brits should therefore be able to flock to the US. We've got as much coronavirus here as anywhere else, and it's growing every day. What will British Airways do? As a user of British Airways I got an email which said that if I had booked any flight to anywhere I could get a refund or a voucher and please dont worry, you will be looked after. But there was a bit of small print which ruined that nice gesture. It only covered customers who booked a flight AFTER March 3. So anyone who planned a trip or a holiday to the US on March 2 will get no nice refund. I'm truly sorry for all airlines because they are having a nightmare but the customers should come first. Anyway we are all at the mercy of political leaders who change their minds from day to day. Boris by all accounts, having said that large assemblies of people can still go ahead, has now been forced to admit the reality of the situation. which is that, Whether it's medically sound or not, major gatherings like football matches and pop shows are being cancelled left right and centre. So next week he is due to announce that any gathering of more than 500 people will be banned. I'm beginning to think that this is becoming a Hollywood horror film blockbuster, like The Day The World Came To An End or whatever. Everyone is walking around looking as if an atomic bomb is about to explode above their heads. And everyone is looking suspiciously at everyone else. But it's not like the Bubonic Plague, it's not like "Bring out your dead". Is it? But every political leader is thinking worst-case scenario and going for the option that basically brings normal life to a halt. All this energy and money going into curbing this virus, yet the dire warnings from scientists and environmentalists that the world is heating up so fast we could all be shrivelled up in 30-50 years seems to attract just a shrug of the shoulders in some notable cases. Trump still doesn't believe it, China carries on burning coal in a million power plants, India is busy turning itself into a first world economy, Brazil is destroying the rain forest, and cows are filling the air with methane gas. The worst thing, apart from the dying of course, is that coronavirus has turned a huge number of people into quivering panicking wrecks. Like the world is coming to an end (see above). Calm down everyone, for goodness sake calm down.

The world has now lost count of the coronavirus victims

I hate to say this but every day the newspapers are logging the steady rise of coronavirus-infected victims and it's all total nonsense, if not downright deceptive. The UK total has been climbing fairly rapidly but the number bears absolutely no relation to the real figure. It's the same in the US, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe. Why? Because only those being tested are being put down as sufferers. The mass of people now with the virus are not getting listed at all because they can't get tested. The doctors are not doing mass testing. No one is. Except for South Korea which has an unbelievably efficient testing programme going on 24 hours a day. But here in UK and elsewhere in Europe and I assume the US, if you suffer the symptoms, or some of them, you are told to go home, stay there for seven days and don't go anywhere near the rest of the family if there is a family. Provided they don't all develop terrible breathing problems, then fine. Like flu, you wait until it's over. But please what is the point of the UK, for example, saying at the end of each day, the number of people with the virus has climbed from 599 to 702 or from 702 to 799? It just isn't true. The figure is meaningless because it doesn't take into account the thousands of people who right now are self-isolating but don't know whether they have the real thing or not. In other words, no health service in the world can cope with a pandemic on this scale. So the only way to deal with it is by counting only those who HAVE been tested, like famous footballers and government ministers and Hollywood film stars. Or am I being too cynical? What I do know from personal experience is that those who are self-isolating because they have made the judgment that they MAY have coronavirus are in a sort of limbo world, not one of the official statistics, not being seen by a doctor because no one is available and counting on someone to leave a bit of food outside the door if they're lucky. Trump is due to make another big announcement later today, apparently to declare a national emergency, whatever that will entail. Probaby shutting the country down and banning all flights in and out. Yet the UK government has put off that sort of drastic action, insisting that it's not only unnecessary but somehow self-defeating. Why do we here think the opposite to the rest of the world? I'm not saying Boris and his health advisers are wrong. I haven't a clue whether they are right or wrong. But with Italy shut down, South Korea testing pretty well anyone who comes by, the US declaring a national emergency, all schools and colleges being closed in Spain, France, Belgium etc etc, how come the UK is standing alone? As I write this, planes are still going over my house like they always do. Where are they coming from and how many of the passengers will be coronavirus carriers and will any of them be tested at the airport and sent into quarantine if necessary. And if not, why not? Political leaders are desperately trying to look like they are in charge and on the ball and omniscient. But really they are like the rest of us, making decisions in the dark and doing things because they hope it might make a difference. The only people who really knew what it was all about were the few Chinese doctors in Wuhan, Hubei province who recognised coronavirus when they first spotted it in November and tried to raise the alarm only to be arrested or told to shut up for fear of causing panic. Now, when the virus in China, having taken its deadly toll, is subsiding, Beijing looks around at the rest of the world and smugly thinks it did all the right things including building a show-off hospital in two weeks from scratch though it was never used, and can now begin to return to normal. If those brave doctors, at least one of whom died, had been listened to and respected for their professionalism, perhaps the pandemic would never have happened. I don't think China should ever be allowed to forget that!

Looks like Bernie Sanders is finished

I remember standing near Bernie Sanders in the park area in front of the White House a year or so back. He was giving an interview to some hotshot TV broadcaster. He sounded confident, sure of himself, a little crumpled and eager to answer the questions. A president-in-the-making? Difficult to say but not really. He was just a veteran senator without any entourage around him. Just a bloke. A nice bloke. Now here we are at a pivotal point in his campaign to be the Democratic nominee for the presidency. Poor Bernie, after all his fervent speechmaking and policy pledges that threatened an upheaval in the whole way the United States manages itself, it looks like his time has come. To back out. He had terrible results in the Super Tuesday votes, a smack in the face in Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri and the prospect of a massive defeat in Florida next week. So, fight on or opt out and give full backing to Joe Biden? It must be so galling to realise that after all your efforts the country just doesn't want you. Most Democrats now seem to want Biden to be the man to take on Trump. It makes sense. It doesn't mean Biden will beat Trump but I'm pretty sure he has a better chance than Bernie would have if he were to be given the nomination. He must know that now. In fact he does know that because he said so yesterday. So whether he goes before Florida or after a beating in Florida, the writing is firmly on the wall. It is time for one individual to take on the responsibility of going for Trump and, for the Democratic party, the sooner the better because the president is confronted by a storm of crises and he will need to be held to account if things go seriously wrong. Coronavirus and the impact on the US economy are the two major issues. And they will remain so for months ahead. I dearly hope, for the sake of the United States which is one of my favourite countries that Trump's remedies for the virus and the economy work swiftly. Banning all flights from mainland Europe to the US for the next 30 days is extraordinary. Yet flights from the UK and Ireland can still go ahead. I'm no virus expert but that sounds to me like a confusing decision. So does that mean only Brits and Irish can fly to the US and only from Heathrow and Shannon? What about Italians working in the UK and hoping to fly to the US? Will they be turned back when they arrive in Washington DC or New York? The trouble is I don't think anyone is a total expert on this virus. The World Health Organisation waited for weeks before declaring it a pandemic when it was clearly that some time ago, Italy has closed up shop, people don't know whether to wear masks or not. Boris Johnson sounds sort of comforting and in charge but no one really knows whether the UK has got to grips with this crisis. So it's back to Biden. Once Bernie drops out as he inevitably will, the former vice president is going to have to prove to the nation that if he becomes president in November - still not very likely - he is going to be able to mastermind every crisis that comes his way. Right now Trump's actions on coronavirus are not reassuring.

Mobile nuke power plants for US troops in remote outposts

FULLER VERSION OF MY PIECE IN THE TIMES TODAY: American troops deployed to remote outposts overseas are to be given mobile mini-nuclear power plants to guarantee electricity supply instead of relying on diesel, the Pentagon has announced. Three contracts worth a total of $40 million have been awarded for the design of a micro-reactor capable of generating one to five megawatts of power. It is envisaged the reactor will be about 40 tons in weight, less than a US Abrams battle tank, which can be transported by road, rail, sea or air. A reactor that size and weight could fit into a C-17 Globemaster aircraft. The Pentagon has been considering mobile nuclear plants for years. But now the first step has been taken to make it happen. The design competition known as Project Pele is between three companies, with the aim of producing a demonstration prototype after two years. A Pentagon spokesman said the plan was to develop a “a safe, mobile and advanced nuclear micro-reactor to support a variety of department of defence missions such as generating power for remote operating bases”. The reactors would last for three years without refuelling. Deploying mobile nuclear plants will present the Pentagon with huge security challenges, not just from the potential threat posed by terrorists but also in the event of a serious malfunction of the reactor. “Fielding these reactors in battlefield conditions without commanders fully understanding the radiological consequences and developing robust response plans to cope with the aftermath [of a breakdown] could prove to be a disastrous miscalculation,” Edwin Lyman of the US Union of Concerned Scientists, said. The reactors will be designed to make a nuclear “meltdown” physically impossible, officials said. The chosen prototype will also need to be capable of withstanding “a direct kinetic attack”. The US army published a study on mini-nuke reactors in 2018, recommending a switch away from diesel for providing power in overseas locations. The report said lorry deliveries of diesel came “at a significant cost in terms of lives and dollars”. “Approximately 18,700 casualties or 52 per cent of the 36,000 total US casualties over a nine-year period during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom [Afghanistan] occurred from hostile attacks during land transport missions,” the US army said. The report suggested a number of locations where a small mobile nuclear power plant could be deployed, including the huge Bagram base near Kabul in Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Guam, Thule airbase in Greenland, Ascension Island and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

US troops start to leave Afghanistan

Some time ago Mark Esper, US Defence Secretary, said he and the US commanders in Afghanistan would be comfortable if the number of troops there was reduced from 13,000 to 8,600. And that was before any sign of a peace deal with the Taliban. Now, post the Qatar deal, the Pentagon has launched into its first phase of withdrawals because that was part of the agreement. Actually the troops coming home were slotted for pull-out anyway but under previous arrangements they would have been replaced by rotating units from the US. Now they won't be replaced and the numbers will come down by several thousand. The 8,600 to be left in Afghanistan for the next 14 months will largely be involved in counter-terrorist missions, with perhaps 3,500 engaged in training and assisting the Afghan security forces. For the Taliban who have so far done very little except breach the implicit understanding that violence would be dramatically reduced, the withdrawal of US troops will be hailed as the greatest of achievements. The Pentagon promised withdrawals would all be approved depending on the conditions on the ground. But in reality, the total figure is going to come down to 8,600 whether the Taliban keep quiet or go on the rampage. And while the 14-month timetable is also supposed to depend on the Taliban behaving themselves, you can bet your life that Trump, in a second term of office if that is what is going to happen in November, will want to make absolutely sure that every soldier and Marine is out of Afghanistan by the Spring of next year. It's going to be very much part of his reelection message, that he promised to bring all the troops home and, look, unlike his predecessors, that is what he has done. So all 13,000 US troops and all the other coalition partners, such as the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain etc will also have brought the Afghanistan chapter to an end. I think it is the right thing to do, after nearly 19 years, but whether the withdrawal will help to ensure lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan is quite another matter.

The Taliban and the secret peace deal annexes

There is a building scandal: the US and the Taliban, enemies for 19 years, agreed a peace deal in Qatar to start the long process to end the war and return the militants to some form of power-sharing in the future. The deal was four pages long and every word was made public. But there were also some annexes which have been kept secret. So the only people who know about the secret bits are the Americans and their hated foe, the Taliban, and perhaps the Afghan president. Mum's the word. Totally extraordinary!! What are in these annexes? The Americans and the Taliban have poured cold water over it all, saying it's no big deal, just a lot of logistical stuff. But hey, the logistical stuff is pretty crucial. Like what secret agreement have the two sides made about reducing violence because there is nothing in the four-page peace deal which stipulates anything like "violence will cease", or "there must be a ceasefire from March 20" or "all weapons to be handed over within six months" etc etc. Nothing. Zero. All we had, prior to the deal signing, was a seven-day reduction in violence which sort of worked although a lot of people seemed to die but not as many as normally would have died in a past seven-day period. But once the seven days were over, there were dozens of attacks going on against Afghan checkpoints around the country and many Afghan soldiers died. The Taliban apparently thought this was ok because they had told the Americans they wouldn't target US forces anymore but the Afghan military were fair game. Terrific! So what's in the annexes that adds any detail to what went on between the US and Taliban? Does it spell out anything about the question of killng people? Apparently not. So what the hell is it all about? Does the peace deal amount to a row of beans or is there something really historic and long-lasting and genuinely peacemaking? The annexes must be published. If there is something truy secret, then secrecy be damned. We need to know. Sorry, the traumatised Afghan people need to know.

The next US vice president will be a woman if Democrats win 2020 election

It's normally unwise to make predictions in elections because just when you think things are going in one direction something happens to make them go in another. But I reckon it's fairly safe ground to predict that if by some miracle a Democrat wins the 2020 presidential election, a woman will be the next vice president. No woman is going to win the Democratic nomination, we know that for sure. But the two leading male candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, must be looking at shortlists of potential running mates, the top two in each case is almost bound to be female. More than at any other time it seems right for a woman to be running with a man for the White House ticket, or I should have put it the other way around! So Biden, at present the leader in the field and likely to remain so all the way to the nomination convention in July, will probably have already decided that it has to be a woman, preferaby one that he gets on with. The obvious candidate to be his vice presidential running mate is Senator Kamala Harris from California. Way back when she was still a presidential candidate in her own right, some Democrat types started putting it around that she would be a good vice president for Joe Biden. At the time this was the last bit of gossip she wanted to hear because she needed to be seen as a future president, not a Number Two to anyone, Biden or whoever. So she dismissed the idea. Now of course it's a different matter. She is out of the race and Biden is up there at the top. Would she now consider more favourably the notion of being vice president? It's a tricky one. If she were to say yes, and Biden goes on to beat Donald Trump, she is up there in lights. Ok, only as vice president, but she could make of the job what she wants and twinning with Biden could do her political career no end of good, even ending up with her becoming president in due course. But if she agrees and Biden loses heavily in the November election, she loses heavily too. Then it's not so good for her political ambitions. Also-ran vice presidential running mates can get lost in the wash. Look at poor Sarah Palin. John McCain chose her to join his ticket in 2008 and when he lost to Barack Obama, she disappeared for ever. So Kamala Harris has to weigh up the arguments for and against joining Biden. If he asks her of course. Biden could go for Elizabeth Warren although that is most unlikely as they are two very different birds of the Democratic feather. Or Tulsi Gabbaard. That could make a good coupling. She is a Hindu Samoan American and a National Guard major in Hawaii. But she is pretty progressive in her views and might be a better fit for Bernie Sanders than for Biden. So there we have it: Kamala Harris with Biden and Tulsi Gabbard with Sanders. Tempting though it might be for Sanders to go with the fiery Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the inspiringly anti-Trump Democratic Representatvie for New York who has been working for his campaign, she is still very much the new girl after winning a seat in Congress in the 2018 intake. Too early for her. Gabbard of course, if asked, would have to go through the same agonising questions as Kamala Harris. But especially for her because Bernie will probably not win the nomination, let alone the presidency.

Another Trump chief of staff ousted

Mick Mulvaney has been White House acting chief of staff for 14 months. By all accounts a helluva of a hellhole job in the current administration. You might say an impossibe job, impossible to please the president all the time, exhausting, all-consuming, battered and bashed from all sides and constantly waiting for the call from the Oval Office: "You're fired." Well, now it has happened. To stay in the job for 14 months is quite an achievement. I'd be surprised if his call home to his wife, mother of triplets, did not go along these lines: "Hello, darling, I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is I've been fired as White House chief of staff, the good news is that I've been fired as White House chief of staff." Actually the "good news" offered by Trump was that he is to be special envoy for Northern Ireland. I don't know whether Mulvaney considers that to be a good move for him but I bet he's relieved to be out of the White House furnace. His two predecessors, Reince Priebus and General John Kelly, often looked like they had been hit by a sledgehammer and departed without a fuss. Mulvaney will soon disappear into the boondocks and in comes a bright and cheery-looking bloke, Republican Representative Mark Meadows, to take charge. I doubt his cheeriness will last long. Trump, if you believe all the Washington gossip, is a tyrant leader who always thinks he knows best and hates being told otherwise. General Kelly, being a smart military type of long experience, thought he could come in and sort out the president, masterminding his working day, only to find that the president didn't like being masterminded, even if it meant his daily chores were more ordered. He loved to be able to ring any one of his trusted advisers outside the White House and have a chat. That was always a nightmare for Kelly and probably for Mulvaney who wanted to keep a handle on who the president spoke with and why. Trump got fed up with Kelly's orderliness. He's friends with Meadows, so there's a chance things will go well for a month or so. But friendship inside the Oval Office is different from friendship outside the White House. It's bound to get tricky soon enough. Then Trump will be looking for his fifth chief of staff. Perhaps he needs a woman in charge.

The end of the female presidential battle

Tulsi Gabbard is for some reason still in the US Democratic presidential nomination race. But basically women are out of the race. Their turn will come, possiby in 2024 or 2028, but it's down to two old white men. If you're a woman with presidential dreams that must be pretty sobering. Elizabeth Warren was the last real female standard bearer but somehow she never quite cut the mustard as we say in Blighty. Too many twists and turns in her campaign until you weren't quite sure where she stood on certain issues, such as medical care. She sounded pretty good in some of the TV debates but I don't think I would ever have considered putting money on her going all the way to the July nomination convention. Other notable women in the race, Kamala Harris, Kirsty Gillibrand and Tulsi Gabbard, all had their moments in the campaign but never really looked like obvious winners, although Kamala Harris held my vote for a long time. So there wasn't a Hillary Clinton among them, and of course, Hillary never made it anyway, defeated by the interloper superstar Barack Obama. Looking ahead to 2024, all of these female contenders could try again if Trump wins reelection in November, although I suspect Senator Warren will have had enough, and she will be getting on a bit by then. More time with her family will crop up as an incentive to stay out of a future race. And by 2024 there will be other potential female candidates moving in, notably I suspect, for the Republican side, Nikki Hayley, former US ambassador to the United Nations. If she runs she will face tough competition from the male species, in particular her old boss, Mike Pompeo. With that sort of competition it is possible that the first woman to make it to the White House as president may have to wait for another few years which to my mind would be truly disappointing. I've gone off Pompeo in recent months but remain hugely impressed by Nikki Hayley and I think she would make a terrific president. But Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard and Gillibrand, after their experience in the 2020 election campaign, might feel there is more to life than battling against the men for the top job.

Is niceness back in favour in the US presidential election?

Most Americans, with the possible exception of the women who have felt uncomfortable with his touchy-feeliness in the past, probably think of Joe Biden as a nice man. That doesn't mean that he will win the Democratic nomination and then go on to win the election on November 3. But it's possible that the American electorate have had enough of the current brazen rumbustuous sometimes out-of-the-pram president and would settle for a period of quiet gentleness. Out with the brash Donald Trump and in with the nice Joe Biden. It's difficult to guage the mood of the nation. Trump supporters will remain Trump supporters but there must be some who have begun to wonder whether he is the right man to continue as president from November 3. On the other hand, the exact opposite may be the case. With nice Mr Biden in charge would the world be a safer place? Wouldn't it be better to stick with the man who knows what he wants and grabs it if he can. He charmed Kim Jong-un and there is still hope that the two men might do something extraordinary. He had a 35-minute phone call with the leading Taliban negotiator and spoke of the need to grasp the chance of peace after nearly 19 years of fighting. Putin respects him, I think. Xi Zinping is probably wary of him which is not a bad thing. Could Biden achieve this sort of diplomatic effect? Would he be too quiet and be unable to make up his mind? Voting for Biden just to have a rest from Trumpism is no way to choose the next president. So, nice man or not, Biden now has to prove, not just to the Democratic voters but also to the US as a whole and to the world, that he has what it takes to be the next president of the United States. OK, he was vice president for eight years and learned a helluva lot about facing up to America's enemies, and friends. But being vice president is absolutely nothing like being president. Look at Mike Pence. In the last three and a bit years, the statue-like body of the vice president has stood behind Trump on every important White House occasion but at no time did you get the feeling that this man was the power behind the throne. Pence is vice president full-stop. Likewise, when Biden was vice president, he was just the guy with the nice smile behind the superstar Barack Obama. So Biden has less than eight months to prove to the nation that he has the wherewithal to remove Trump from office and march smartly into the Oval Office to take his place and stamp the Biden Doctrine on the next four years. Assuming that is Biden is nominated in July which isn't for sure. Bernie Sanders might also make a comeback. But somehow I doubt it. I think it's Biden's turn and poor Bernie will miss his once again. Biden is known to be gaffe-prone but I don't think a president-in-the-making has to be absolutely word perfect. It's easy to make mistakes under pressure and in front of the television camera lights. Former UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt for heaven's sake once introduced his wife to his Chinese counterpart on a trip to China and said she was Japanese when in fact she is Chinese. Past US presidents on foreign trips have muddled up which country they were in. But too many gaffes and Biden could fall by the way side. But if he wins the nomination, the competition for the White House on November 3 is going to be between The Nasty Man and The Nice Man.

Who is prepared to sacrifice a dream among the Democratic candidates?

Out of the surviving Democratic presidential candidates which, if any of them, are NeverTrumpers first and "I wanna be president" second? Jonathan Friedman, a wise old (well, middled-aged) political commentator for The New York Times, suggests today that all the top grandees of the party, like Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader in the Senate, should get together in a room and work out which candidate could beat Trump and then go out and make sure somehow that their chosen candidate gets the nomination and all the rest fall on their swords. Or words to that effect. Well, it sounds sensible but of course it is never going to happen. No one is going to fall on his or her sword unless or until the state primaries dictate otherwise. A hopeless performance at the polls and/or a drying-up of donations will soon drive the message home that his or her campaign is over. But really we're talking here about Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden who, after Super Tuesday are streets ahead of their rivals both in state victories and delegates for the July Democratic National Convention. So would Bernie or Joe, for the good of the party, call it quits and rally round the Chosen One? No no no way! Both have invested too much to surrender now and wouldn ot take kindly to any moves by Pelosi and co try to persuade either of them to step down. And, anyway, if there were ever to be a darkened room with the grandees plotting the nomination, it's pretty obvious who they would come out and anoint: one Joe Biden. Sanders who has done so well so far - and snatching California is his greatest achievement - is not going to let Biden just carry the trophy to the July convention. It would be the greatest betrayal for him and his supporters since, well, since the great betrayal in the 2016 race with Hillary Clinton when plottings against him and his perceived wild socialism undermined his campaign. Fatally. So Bernie is going to stand and fight all the way. If he had done badly on Super Tuesday that would be a different matter. As for Joe Biden, he would never think of making way for Sanders. Why on earth would he? He has suddenly seized momentum and must actually believe that he could/maybe/possiby/oh my God end up in the White House as president. His first priority, and Bernie's first priority, is to win the nomination and go on from there. Then it will be all about beating Trump and ousting him after his four years in office. All the candidates at some point have said that it's vital to get rid of Trump for the sake of the country, but after the failure of the impeachment trial, that message seems to have died down a bit. Now it's all about the fight between Bernie and Joe. So if Pelosi has any plotting in mind it would be wise to keep it to herself. Any hint of subterfuge against Bernie would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party and would do no good to Joe either. It has to be a fair fight. So, sorry Mr Friedman, your idea is fun but is out of the question and, frankly, treacherous!

Political careers now rest on how coronavirus is tackled

Boris Johnson has come out with an apocalyptic view of the worst-case scenario for the coronavirus threat: troops on the streets, no police to fight crime, one in five workers ill at home, schools closed, concerts cancelled, all-but-essential travel frowned on. The trouble with these sort of predictions is that it generates panic. Supermarket shelves are empyting, face mask purchases have rocketed, thousands of planned flights are being cancelled. And there are just 51 cases in this country. I realise if you're the prime minister you don't want to be caught out taking minimal steps and pretending it's all overblown. But the picture now painted for us Brits is so dire that it seems the only way to survive is to stuff the fridge with food and milk and lock the front door for the next few months. But then another minister pipes up that everyone should go about their normal business. It's like when there is a terrorist attack. Ministers and police and mayors always say that terrorists will never change our way of life and sure enoough the very next day everything seems to go back to normal. Bridges where the attack took place are opened up again and people trot across without a care in the world. That's good. But now with coronavirus we ae being asked to change our lives. Don't do this, don't do that. President Trump and his coronavirus team are facing the same problem. They want to be seen to be tough but yet not scare everyone. The weird thing is that while all this is going on there are still daily flights coming into Heathrow and Gatwick, and presumably there are hundreds of flights going into the US every day. People travel. They can't be stopped, otherwise every airline will go out of business. So far Washington state on the northwest coast seems to be the most hit by the virus. But there are no China-type images in the US or Britain as yet, showing towns and cities empty of people. Venice is empty which is really sad and that could last for months. But is it actually too dangerous to go to Venice or other cities in northern Italy? For political leaders, what they do now could provide their biggest legacy. Disaster if they fail to stop the virus spreading all over or triumph if they succeed. If the virus takes a real hold on the US, Trump may not win reelection. If Boris's attempts to curb the virus fail he will be blamed. That's why he has delivered this warlike programme of measures today. It sounds over the top but perhaps it's wise to plan for the worst. I'm not going to the shops today!

Democratic candidates down to five. The Magnificent Five? Not really.

We're getting there gradually. One more Democratic candidate has dropped out. Pete Buttigieg, trying to do a white Obama and looking pretty good especially after Iowa where it seemed possible a huge upset could be about to hit the Democratic race to the White House. But it wasn't to be. Perhaps no real surprise. So now the voters are left with two women and three old men. I say "old" with respect. Bernie, Joe and Bloomberg are all well over 70 and closer to 80. Roughly the same in age, 76/77. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be president of the United States but if one of them wins in November and then goes on to serve two terms in office, he will complete his presidency at the age of 86. You've only got to look at past presidents to see that a President Sanders or Biden or Bloomberg would be way much older after two terms of four years than any other American president. For example, Eisenhower was 70 at the end of his presidency, Reagan was 77, George HW Bush, 68, Bill Clinton, 54, George W Bush, 62, and Obama, 55. Whereas President Warren, after eight years, would be 79, and President Klobuchar, 68. Age is not everything, young or old, but it's something to think about. Of course Trump is pretty old, too. If he wins a second term he will be 78 by the time he leaves office. It's difficult to think of the five remaining Democratic candidates as The Magnificent Five (with due respect to the greatest film ever released, The Magnificent Seven, the original one starring Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen). There's not a lot that's hugely magnificent about any of them but five is a lot easier to handle than the 23 or so who started out in the race. Much will depend now on who they have in mind for their vice presidential running mate. It could make all the difference. What is for sure is that they will all have learned the McCain lesson. You will recall that Senator John McCain, the exceptional and much-missed former Republican presidential candidate in 2008 selected out of a list of at least 20 people the Alaska governor Sarah Palin. It was a bold and inspiring and disastrous decision on his part. No one, and I mean no one, felt they could risk having that charming lady just a heartbeat away from becoming president. It pretty well kiboshed McCain's chances of winning the presidential election and the voters turned instead to one Barak Obama who selected dear old Joe Biden to be his running mate. So there'll be no Sarah Palins on the ticket this time round. But perhaps Pete Buttigieg or Senator Kamala Harris or George Clooney (just joking althougb he does love his politics)?

US Democrats now in a two-horse race

After Joe Biden's comeback-kid success at South Carolina the Democrats are now effectively moving towards a two-horse race: Biden versus Senator Bernie Sanders, centrist against leftist. I bet there is a huge sense of relief in the Democratic Party hierarchy. At last Biden has something to smile about, a huge victory at South Carolina, way past Sanders who came second. We still don't know what impact Mike Bloomberg is going to make when he deigns to appear as a candidate for the first time in the presidential race on March 3, the Super Tuesday 14-state voting day (plus the 15th sector, Democrats Abroad). I suspect that while the former New York City mayor may grab a nice little chunk of votes - and a handful of delegates for the Democratic National Convention in July - his entry is too late. It's now the Bernie and Joe show. Bernie still has more delegates than Joe, but Super Tuesday could change that. This is what the Democratic Party wants. They want Joe, not Bernie. If Bernie wins the nomination, the party will have to grit its teeth and pray. If Joe wins, the party will sleep better at night and dream of a White House takeover. It's probably wrong to make too big a song and dance over Biden's success at South Carolina on Saturday. He was always going to do better there than in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. But the fact is he overwhelmed Sanders and it suddenly made Biden look like a realistic prospect for the White House, rather than a no-hoper, beaten by an older man with very different ideas to his own. Sanders will still feel confident and there seems to be no slowing down in the mass of donations he is getting. He was bound to falter at one or other of the states still to vote and South Carolina had looked like a fingers-crossed moment for him. For Biden it was vital to win big in South Carolina. Otherwise the American press would have written him off. Now its neck-and-neck Bernie and Joe and all the rest are also rans. It must be very dispiriting for the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. How much longer can they hold on to their dream? Tom Steyer, the very-long-shot other billionaire in the race, did pretty well in South Carolina but he could read the omens and opted out. Super Tuesday will ruin other candidates' day. Certainly Klobuchar and maybe Warren. Depends a bit on Bloomberg. Meanwhile Joe Biden is a new man. I wonder if Donald Trump cares!