Alliance Against Beijing: A Milestone In Containing China

 "The US, Japan and the Netherlands join forces to cut off China's access to advanced semiconductors. Beijing's retaliatory options are limited.

When the United States announced unprecedented export restrictions to hit China's chip industry last October, it went it alone. Joe Biden's chief export controller at the Department of Commerce, Alan Estevez, said at the time that it was adapting to the evolving threat from Beijing - and continued efforts "to outreach and coordinate with allies and partners".

What Estevez didn't say at the time, however, was that Washington had been negotiating behind the scenes for months with the Netherlands and Japan to bring two of the most important locations for chip machine manufacturers on board. But the talks were extremely tough. Almost four months later, the three countries now seem to have reached an agreement.

The USA, the Netherlands and Japan have not yet announced much about the deal which, according to media reports, they made last Friday in Washington. 

But one thing seems clear: China will be cut off from one of the most important high-tech products from Western production, machines for manufacturing the most powerful computer chips in the world. They are built in the Netherlands by market leader ASML and its Japanese competitors Nikon and Canon.

ASML said, "To our understanding, steps have been taken towards an intergovernmental agreement related to advanced chip manufacturing technology." Nikon and Tokyo Electron initially did not comment. This is considered an indication that details of the government agreements are still open.

Politically, the agreement is a milestone. Washington had already started to put pressure on the Netherlands to stop selling chip manufacturing technologies during the Trump administration in 2018 - apparently successfully. 

Shortly after a visit by Prime Minister Mark Rutte to the White House, the Dutch government decided not to renew the export license to China for so-called EUV machines, on which ASML has a monopoly. Using extreme ultraviolet light, these machines can burn billions of transistors onto microchips, the distance between the lines being only three to seven millionths of a meter.

Fragile Supply Chains

A year ago, Washington wanted to extend the ban from the most modern to the predecessor model, the so-called DUV machines. The Biden administration justified this with a threat to national security - with possible military applications, from drones to ICBMs. However, such semiconductors are also used in cars, computers and mobile phones and are already in short supply, which is reflected in longer delivery times for cars. A blanket export ban to China would also have severely restricted the business of the Dutch group ASML, each individual machine costs 160 million euros.

Prime Minister Rutte therefore formulated three conditions for the negotiations. "We agree with everyone who says that Western high technology in semiconductors should not be used everywhere in the world," he said last week in an interview with the F.A.Z. and some other international media. "Secondly, we must maintain the technological leadership of the West, Europe, America and Asia." Thirdly, however, one must "think of the supply chains, because many chips are used in refrigerators, cars, televisions that are not high-tech". There was a struggle for this third point.

Even if the details are still uncertain, only some of the DUV machines seem to be affected by the export ban. The chip sanctions unilaterally imposed on China by the United States in October anyway only block the export of machines and technology for chips of the latest technology generation. Older chips, which are widely used in cars, are not affected by the October sanctions.

The bold action taken by the Americans against China in the struggle for technological leadership initially caused concern among other chip manufacturers such as Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea. The corona pandemic has shown how fragile the highly complex supply chains are. In addition, China's threats against Taiwan have fueled concerns that a military conflict could cut off the global economy from leading semiconductor maker TSMC, which makes a quarter of the world's most advanced chips. America has therefore set itself the goal of becoming more independent: In August, President Joe Biden signed a bill that provides more than fifty billion dollars for the domestic semiconductor industry.

Since last year, his government has been making intensive efforts to ensure that the Netherlands and Japan on America's side in the technology dispute with China. After numerous talks with senior officials, the bosses themselves, Prime Minister Rutte and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, were with Biden in January. From the USA's point of view, the Netherlands and Japan not only have to be included under the sanctions umbrella because they are leaders in the construction of machines for state-of-the-art chips, but also so that American companies are not disadvantaged when exporting simple machines.

Fear of industrial espionage

According to the Americans, Beijing wants to use technological progress for "military modernization" - such as artificial intelligence in military technology and improved control of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction. In addition, modern technologies are used in China without regard to human rights, including to monitor its own citizens. The White House has not yet commented on the details of the current deal. According to media reports, this could remain the case because of the sensitive topic; Accordingly, Tokyo and The Hague fear retaliatory measures from Beijing.

So far, China has hardly reacted to the American export bans of October, although they have considerable consequences for Beijing, especially after the agreement reached at the weekend. "If the restrictions take effect, they will prevent China from catching up in advanced semiconductors in the long term," says an industry expert in Beijing. Nevertheless, China has not announced any substantial new semiconductor policy within the past year and a half. The government has only bad options to choose from. "They can mobilize the whole country to develop cutting-edge semiconductor technology themselves, but that would arguably destroy the globalization goals of their leading companies."

The range of retaliatory measures is also limited. In 2021, China passed a law to ward off foreign sanctions. However, it has not yet been used against technology companies. "You need as many friends as possible in the technology sector," says the industry expert. Nevertheless, he expects measures against Japan. "It will become more difficult for Japanese companies to operate in China."

Why have the Netherlands and Japan now sided with Washington? Emily Benson, an export control expert at the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, sees various reasons for the two countries' complacency. On the one hand, they feared industrial espionage, the theft of intellectual property by China. "Many companies have grown tired of this behavior on the part of the Chinese." In addition to economic considerations, multilateralism also plays a role, "the question of what rules we set for technologies and trade," says Benson of the F.A.Z. Countries wanted control over fields they saw as vital to their national security.

A new "Iron Curtain"?

For the Dutch and Japanese, that means taking a similar approach to America - "namely, taking a harder line on China." But "we need to know more details first to say if that was a victory for the Americans." Benson believes it could be months before concrete measures take effect, partly because the Netherlands would have to adapt its export laws. ASML also said it does not expect the measures to have "a significant impact" on estimates for 2023.

Japan stands with the United States in assessing the risks of a technologically empowering China. It was only this year that the country put the topic on the agenda of companies with a view to China with new rules and requirements for economic security. The concerns in Tokyo about far-reaching export restrictions come from the economy. The country plays a major role in machinery and materials used in semiconductor manufacturing, with companies such as Tokyo Electron and Nikon.

China is also Japan's most important trading partner, ahead of the United States, and could respond to the export restrictions with trade sanctions. 

Political relations between the two countries are strained. A summit between Xi Jinping and Kishida, which Tokyo had hoped for, did not take place before the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. 

Trying not to irritate Beijing unduly is one reason why Tokyo is keeping to a minimum about the deal with the United States.

The Dutch newspaper "de Volkskrant" compared the agreement to a new "Iron Curtain", now made of silicon. Of course, the picture is flawed, because the West is pulling up this curtain, not the East, and it is supposed to shield China – since the recent sanctions on Russia, no machines for semiconductor production have been allowed to be exported to Russia anyway. 

However, it describes quite well that it is actually about geopolitics: namely containing China's rise, economically and militarily. 

Experts say that without Western help, it will take decades for Beijing to be able to build today's best microchips itself - and they would then be obsolete."

 

These sanctions are huge mistake. Does anybody believe that China will switch to production of technologically obsolete junk for the world? China is big. They do not need to direct all country's efforts for production of some stupid UV machines. The West just lost half of the world as a market for their technology.

Kaip Bideno pareigūnai sunaikino geresnę vakciną

  "Kiek kartų visuomenės sveikatos ekspertai mums sakė, kad Covidas nepanašus į gripą? Staiga tai pasikeitė. Maisto ir vaistų administracija (FDA) praėjusią savaitę pasiūlė gydyti virusą taip pat, kaip nuo gripo, kai reikia rekomenduoti kasmetines vakcinas.

 

     Šioje strategijoje yra akivaizdi problema: „Covid“ nėra sezoninis. Šis virusas parodė puikų gebėjimą plisti ištisus metus, o užkrėtimo bangos kyla tiek vasarą, tiek žiemą.

 

     MRNR vakcinos geriausiu atveju padidina apsaugą nuo infekcijos kelis mėnesius. Rudenį vartojamas stiprintuvas gali kelis mėnesius sumažinti tikimybę susirgti, nors jūsų apsauga priklauso nuo jūsų imuninio atsako į konkrečius cirkuliuojančius variantus. Tačiau antikūnams mažėjant žiemą, vėl tapsite jautrūs infekcijai.

 

     Neaišku, ar galimas stiprintuvų pavojus jauniems, sveikiems suaugusiems ir vaikams viršija šią nedidelę trumpalaikę naudą. Pagyvenę žmonės, kuriems gresia didžiausia rizika, gali gauti naudos iš stiprintuvų, tačiau neprotinga tikėtis, kad jie turės juos vartoti du ar daugiau kartų per metus, kaip siūlo FDA.

 

     Visa tai pabrėžia, kaip kvaila vyriausybė reklamuoja Pfizer ir Moderna mRNR vakcinas vienos dozės „Johnson & Johnson“ sąskaita, nes dauguma įrodymų rodo, kad imunitetas yra patvaresnis.

 

     Trumpo administracijos operacija „Warp Speed“ buvo skirta šešiems vakcinų kandidatams, kurie rėmėsi skirtingomis platformų technologijomis, kurių kiekviena turėjo privalumų ir trūkumų. Pagrindinis mRNR vakcinų pranašumas buvo gebėjimas jas greitai pagaminti, o tai buvo viena iš priežasčių, kodėl jos pirmos gavo FDA leidimą.

 

     Iš pradžių mRNR vakcinos taip pat sukūrė didelį antikūnų kiekį, todėl atsitiktinių imčių kontroliuojamų tyrimų metu jos parodė beveik 95% apsaugą nuo simptominės infekcijos.

 

     Tačiau pagrindinis šių vakcinų trūkumas yra tas, kad jų antikūnai išnyksta po kelių mėnesių, todėl didelės rizikos asmenys tampa pažeidžiami infekcijų ir sunkių ligų. Vienas tyrimas iš Pietų Afrikos nustatė, kad apsauga nuo dviejų Pfizer vakcinos dozių nuo hospitalizavimo Omicron metu sumažėjo nuo 80%, praėjus maždaug dviem savaitėms po inokuliacijos, iki 19%, praėjus devyniems mėnesiams.

 

     J&J vektorinę vakciną yra sunkiau gaminti, todėl sulėtėjo jos išleidimas. Iš pradžių ji taip pat sukuria mažesnį antikūnų kiekį, nei mRNR vakcinos, todėl jos vienkartinės dozės veiksmingumas buvo tik 72%. (Du J&J skiepai suteikė apsaugą, panašią į mRNR dviejų dozių režimą.)

 

     Tačiau J&J vakcinos antikūnai yra patvaresni, o T-ląstelių atsakas yra stipresnis. T-ląstelės yra svarbios, siekiant apsaugoti žmones nuo sunkių ligų, kai antikūnų mažėja – ir, skirtingai, nei antikūnai, jų nelengva išvengti naujiems variantams.

 

     2022 m. kovo mėn. New England Journal of Medicine atliktas tyrimas parodė, kad T-ląstelių žudikių atsakas J&J vakcinai buvo 5–10 kartų stipresnis, nei mRNR vakcinų. Kitas tyrimas parodė, kad praėjus aštuoniems mėnesiams po inokuliacijos, J&J vakcinos neutralizuojančių antikūnų kiekis taip pat buvo penkis kartus didesnis, nei Moderna vakcinos ir 12 kartų didesnis, nei Pfizer vakcinos.

 

     Tai paaiškina, kodėl apsauga nuo infekcijos ir hospitalizavimo po J&J vakcinos, laikui bėgant, išliko stabilesnė. Tyrimas, kuriame dalyvavo 10,6 milijono Šiaurės Karolinos gyventojų, parodė, kad J&J vakcinos apsauga nuo infekcijos pranoko Pfizer po keturių mėnesių ir Moderna po aštuonių mėnesių. Apsauga nuo mirties laikėsi panašios tendencijos. Žmonėms, kurie nenori gauti papildomos dozės kas keturis ar šešis mėnesius, Johnson & Johnson vakcina yra geriausia vakcina.

 

     Tačiau 2021 m. balandžio mėn. Bideno administracijos pareigūnai panaudojo ryšį tarp J&J vakcinos ir labai reto, bet potencialiai gyvybei pavojingo kraujo krešėjimo sutrikimo, vadinamo tromboze su trombocitopenijos sindromu, kad mestų skiepą po autobusu. Ligų kontrolės ir prevencijos centrai apskaičiavo, kad rizika yra maždaug 4 iš milijono ir didžiausia tarp 30–49 metų moterų.

 

     Į tokį šalutinį poveikį reikia žiūrėti rimtai. Tačiau mRNR vakcinos taip pat kelia pavojų saugai, ypač nuo miokardito, ypač jauniems vyrams. Šį mėnesį FDA atliktas tyrimas taip pat parodė, kad vyresnio amžiaus žmonėms, kurie buvo paskiepyti Pfizer, padidėja plaučių embolijos rizika. Po to, kai FDA iš pradžių atmetė „statistinį signalą“, siejantį Pfizer dvivalentį stiprintuvą su padidėjusia insulto rizika, praėjusią savaitę CDC pristatymas atskleidė, kad rizika gali būti tikra ir didesnė vyresnio amžiaus žmonėms, kurie tuo pačiu metu gavo didelę skiepų nuo gripo dozę.

 

     Visuomenės sveikatos institucijos rugsėjį suskubo išleisti dvivalečius stiprintuvus, nors neturėjo klinikinių tyrimų veiksmingumo ir saugumo duomenų, iš dalies dėl to, kad jie manė, kad jų suvartojimas būtų didesnis, jei vyresnio amžiaus žmonės galėtų jais pasiskiepyti kartu su gripo. „Dievas davė mums dvi rankas: vieną skiepyti nuo gripo, o kitą – nuo Covid“, – Baltųjų rūmų Covid caras Ashishas Jha šmaikštavo per spaudos konferenciją.

 

     Nesitikėkite, kad Bideno administracija pripažins šią klaidą arba savo klaidą, reklamuojant mRNR vakcinas, o ne Johnson & Johnson vakciną. Abi klaidos kyla dėl trumparegiškų skaičiavimų, kurie tinkamai nepasveria rizikos ir naudos. Tas pats pasakytina ir apie kasmetinį stiprintuvą.“ [1] 

 

1. Life Science: How Biden Officials Bungled a Better Vaccine
Finley, Allysia.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 30 Jan 2023: A.17.

How Biden Officials Bungled a Better Vaccine

"How many times have public-health experts told us that Covid isn't like the flu? Suddenly that's changed. The Food and Drug Administration last week proposed treating the virus just like the flu when it comes to recommending annual vaccines.

There's a glaring problem with this strategy: Covid isn't seasonal. This virus has shown a remarkable ability to transmit year-round, with waves of infection occurring during summer as well as winter.

The mRNA vaccines boost protection against infection for a few months at best. A booster during the fall therefore may reduce your odds of getting sick for a few months -- though your protection depends on your immune response to the particular variants circulating. But as antibodies wane during the winter, you'll become susceptible again.

It's unclear that the potential risks of boosters for young, healthy adults and children exceed this small, short-term benefit. The elderly, who are at highest risk, might benefit on balance from boosters, but it's unreasonable to expect them to have to get them twice or more a year, as the FDA is proposing.

All of this underscores the folly of the government's promotion of Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA vaccines at the expense of the one-dose shot by Johnson & Johnson, which most evidence suggests provides more durable immunity.

The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed bet on six vaccine candidates that relied on different platform technologies, each of which came with advantages and drawbacks. A major benefit of the mRNA vaccines was their ability to be made rapidly, which was one reason they were the first to receive FDA authorization.

The mRNA vaccines also initially generated high levels of antibodies, which was why they demonstrated nearly 95% protection against symptomatic infection during randomized controlled trials.

Yet a major downside of these vaccines is that their antibodies ebb after a few months, leaving high-risk individuals vulnerable to infection and severe illness. One study from South Africa found that protection from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization during Omicron dropped from 80% about two weeks after inoculation to 19% nine months later.

J&J's vector vaccine is more difficult to manufacture, which slowed its rollout. It also initially generates a lower level of antibodies than the mRNA vaccines, which is why its single dose was only 72% effective in its trial. (Two J&J shots provided protection comparable to the mRNA two-dose regimen.)

But the J&J vaccine's antibodies are more durable, and its T-cell response is stronger. T-cells are important for protecting people from severe illness when antibodies wane -- and unlike antibodies, they aren't easily eluded by new variants.

A March 2022 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the killer T-cell response was five to 10 times as strong for the J&J vaccine as for the mRNA vaccines. Another study found that eight months after inoculation, neutralizing antibodies from the J&J vaccine were also five times as high as for the Moderna vaccine and 12 times as high as for Pfizer's.

This explains why protection against infection and hospitalization from the J&J vaccine has remained more stable over time. A study of North Carolina's 10.6 million residents showed J&J vaccine's protection against infection surpassing Pfizer after four months and Moderna after eight. Protection against death followed a similar trend. For people who don't want to get boosted every four to six months, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine looks to be the better shot.

But Biden administration officials used the discovery in April 2021 of a link between the J&J vaccine and a very rare but potentially life-threatening blood-clotting disorder known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome to throw the shot under the bus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the risk at about 4 in a million and highest among women 30 to 49.

Such side effects need to be taken seriously. But the mRNA vaccines have safety risks too, not least myocarditis, especially for young men. An FDA study this month also found an increased risk of pulmonary embolism among seniors who had received the Pfizer vaccine. After the FDA initially played down a "statistical signal" linking Pfizer's bivalent booster to an increased risk of stroke, a CDC presentation last week revealed the risk may be real after all and appeared to be higher in seniors who had simultaneously gotten a high-dose flu shot.

Public-health authorities rushed to roll out the bivalent boosters in September despite having no clinical trial efficacy and safety data, partially because they believed uptake would be higher if seniors could get them at the same time as the flu shot. "God gave us two arms: one for the flu shot and the other one for the Covid shot," White House Covid czar Ashish Jha quipped during a press briefing.

Don't expect the Biden administration to acknowledge this blunder, or its mistake of promoting the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. Both errors stem from shortsighted calculations that don't properly weigh risks against benefits. The same goes for the annual booster push." [1]

1. Life Science: How Biden Officials Bungled a Better Vaccine
Finley, Allysia.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 30 Jan 2023: A.17.