Search the archive.

Universal basic income (UBI) was propelled into mainstream awareness during Andrew Yang’s campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential candidacy. Now, programs offering monthly cash payments to specific communities have sprung up across the country. But while the public often conflates UBI with these programs, economic justice activists warn that they have very different goals. Many anti-poverty groups agree that strategically targeted guaranteed income, not UBI, is the best path forward to ending poverty, advancing gender and racial equity and supporting low-income Americans.

In 2020, Yang’s focus on UBI helped raise public awareness of the policy. His “Freedom Dividend” promised to give $1,000 per month to every American adult—”everyone from a hedge fund billionaire in New York to an impoverished single mom in West Virginia,” Yang’s own site explained.

Malcolm Torry, London School of Economics, A Research Agenda for Basic Income, Elgar Publishing, 2023

The problem with the word ‘guarantee’ is that to guarantee an income can either mean to guarantee that a particular income will be paid as a Basic Income, or that a stated income level will be reached by some means that might not imply a Basic Income. The two possible meanings of ‘guarantee’ in this context can result in ambiguities in the literature that can leave the reader not knowing whether what is being discussed is a guaranteed Basic Income or a Minimum Income Guarantee (Grevc, 2017: 95, 127; Torry, 2021a: 7-9): and so, for example, a sentence such as The idea is to guarantee every citizen in the country an unconditional income sufficient to meet some minimal threshold’ (Walker, 2016: 3) can be read either as meaning that an unconditional income is given to every individual, or that every individual or household is given an income-tested benefit to enable them to reach a prescribed threshold. If the reader is aware of the potential ambiguity then they might be able to work out what the author intends in a particular context, but if they are not, and they bring to the text a presupposition that to guarantee an income implies a Basic Income, then they might completely misunderstand what the author has in mind: for instance, if a Minimum Income Guarantee experiment is what is being discussed.

Creating a safe, inclusive work environment that is free of harassment and microaggressions is critical to maintaining a strong business and retaining employees of color. Voluntary DEI training, rather than mandatory programming, can be a more effective tool in helping employees improve their understanding and skills, no matter their starting point. Voluntary diversity training can take many forms. In our experience, focusing the content of voluntary trainings on history, facts, and tangible actions is the most productive form. Trainings should include education on the causes and effects of systemic racism and other types of discrimination, how to identify and mitigate them in the workplace, and how intentionally inclusive employment practices and workplace behaviors can help to reverse them. Research shows that voluntary DEI training improves racial and ethnic representation within companies, leading to 9% to 13% increases in Black men, Hispanic men, and Asian American men and women in management after five years. This is in contrast to mandatory training, which has been proven to backfire. Compulsory programs can have harmful effects on the retention and advancement of underrepresented groups: Five years after instituting required training, companies found there was no improvement in the proportion of white women, Black men, or Hispanic people in management. Furthermore, the share of Black women managers plummeted by 9%.

There is substantial variation in whether workplace training and mentorship programs are voluntary or mandatory. When programs are voluntary, many workers do not participate. We conducted a natural field experiment on a mentorship program in a sales call center where in one treatment arm, labeled the Mandatory-Condition, all subjects were either randomly assigned a mentor or not. A second treatment arm, labeled the Voluntary-Condition, required subjects to opt into the program before randomization into receiving a mentor. In the Mandatory-Condition, the mentorship treatment raised workers’ daily revenue by 17% in their first two months of tenure. In the Voluntary-Condition, those who opted out of the program were substantially less productive than those who opted in, and treatment gains conditional on program participation were negligible. Comparing the conditions indicates that treatment effects are largest for workers who are most likely to opt out of participating in the program. We conclude that workplace programs can raise the productivity of lower performing employees but these workers may require inducements or mandates to participate.

Voluntary training is typically a part of a company’s strategy to improve employee knowledge, skills, and job performance. However, it can be difficult to get employees to participate in these programs because they are voluntary. Increasing participation in these training programs not only increases organizational effectiveness, but also is of benefit to the individual employee. Voluntary training can be a win-win situation. Also, if the company infrastructure for web-based training is present (networks, computers, learning management system, etc.), the cost of providing the training opportunity is relatively low. Problem Statement Problem: Companies desire to increase employee and organizational capabilities via voluntary trainining, but in many cases and for various reasons employees do not participate.

As the world transitions to a more sustainable future, there is a growing demand for skilled workers in emerging green industries.

However, the shift is also creating a skills gap in traditional industries, leading to labor shortages and challenges in meeting the demands of the green economy.

Efforts must be made to incorporate changes into training practices, revise training programmes and introduce new ones so as to ensure the employability of workers in a rapidly changing world. The green transition is generating far more demand for upgraded skills in established occupations than it is creating brand new occupations (ILO et al., 2013). In both cases, as green markets evolve and mature, there is an increasing tendency for the related jobs to require more specialized and better-skilled personnel, preferably with formal qualifications. While the initial training system has a role in bringing in a new generation of professionals well prepared for the opportunities and challenges of the twenty first century, continuing training is essential to ensure that those already in work adjust to the rapidly evolving and urgent demands of the green economy. The timeliness or the lack thereof with which TVET systems respond to sustainability concerns and the demand for related skills can put these systems in a virtuous cycle of interaction with the labour market, or alternatively widen the disconnect between the demand for and the supply of skills. A demand-driven approach to greening skills is therefore necessary: the needs of the economic market in terms of jobs and skills must be identified and then answered through appropriate training offers, with the final aim being to ensure the employability of professionals and future professionals in the green economy. However, despite recent changes, many employers still have a lack of knowledge on sustainability related skills and do not explicitly demand such skills or qualifications from their employees (Strietska-Ilina et al., 2011). This is why the TVET system should not be limited to being a mere supplier satisfying economic demands. It also has a responsibility and opportunity to help generate a new generation of workers and entrepreneurs willing and able to frame an economic model adhering to the principles of sustainable development, in a way that fits the national political orientation (Majumdar, 2010). Moving towards sustainability while improving the quality and status of TVET requires innovative and transformational leaders in all policy, economic and educational spheres who can seize the opportunities to create a new vision for twenty-first century skills, jobs, economies and societies.

The transition to the green economy requires the education and the development of new skills needed for new jobs. The training programs for green jobs can be included in formal and informal education systems.

2. Green economy

Challenge 1: Skill shortages are already hampering the transition to greener economies. A lack of the skills needed to meet the requirements of changing and newly emerging occupations impedes green investment and hinders green economic development. This equally applies to skills of established occupations for which demand is growing. Shortages generally reflect underestimates of growth and labour demand, particularly in technology-driven green sectors. In green building, for instance, skills shortages frequently arise when projects are undertaken without sufficient provision for skills development. Similarly, a lack of efficient coordination between investment in a green economy and investment in skills can lead to shortages of relevant green job skills. Many countries lack sufficient teachers and trainers in environmental awareness and specialist areas such as renewable energy.

Challenge 2: Skills and environmental policies need to come together. While most countries have drawn up some environmental policies, few have put in place the skills development strategies needed to implement them (see figure 1). Without coherence between skills and environmental policies, skills bottlenecks may well impede the successful transition to greener production and consumption. European countries are taking a lead in this area, notably France (see box 3). Outside Europe, the United States and Australia stand out in terms of their training response to the challenges posed by greening. In the least developed countries, skills development strategies are rarely included in national climate change adaptation plans. The reasons for this include weak coordination between national planning and labour ministries, and a lack of adequate resources and institutional capacity to implement such strategies. Coordination within individual sectors is also important. In the case of renewable energies, for example, policy coordination and planning are needed to smooth the pace of investment over time so as to provide stable employment for workers, avoid periods of serious skill shortages, and make future demand for skills more predictable, both for providers of training and education and for their students.

The U.S. is making some progress on this front. Approximately 875,000 Americans already hold jobs related to sustainability, renewable energy, and conservation. Over the next decade, the number of green jobs in the U.S. is expected to grow by another 114,000, or 9%. Specialized green jobs such as wind turbine service technicians and solar photovoltaic installers are projected to increase by more than 50%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And roles in climate protection—such as environmental engineering and conservation science—pay significantly higher salaries than the national median wage.

But the demand for green jobs is outpacing the production of green talent. Jobs that require green skills—building blocks such as waste prevention, environmental remediation, and other abilities that promote environmental sustainability of economic abilities—are crucial to this green transformation. A 2022 LinkedIn report found that job postings that require green skills have increased by 8% per year over the past five years, even as the pool of green talent grew by just 6% a year over that same period.

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law last year, provides for an estimated $370 billion in solar, wind and electric vehicle subsidies, according to the White House. Starting Jan. 1, American consumers can take advantage of those tax credits to upgrade home heating systems or put solar panels on their roofs. Those investments will create nearly 537,000 jobs a year for a decade, according to an analysis by BW Research commissioned by The Nature Conservancy.

But with the U.S. unemployment rate at an historic low of 3.5%, companies say they fear they will struggle to fill those jobs, and that plans to transition away from fossil fuels could stall out. Despite layoff announcements and signs of a slowdown elsewhere in the economy, the labor market for clean energy jobs remains tight.

In reality, the fiscal costs are likely to be much, much higher, and the economic welfare losses even more significant, because in the labor market and broader economy, a public jobs guarantee program would significantly crowd out productive private sector activity. This type of policy will radically alter behavior of both workers and businesses, and so the supply and demand for labor. The Census shows that, among those who worked in 2016, 70+ million Americans earned under $32,500 (the full‐​time job guarantee salary would be $31,200). Yes, not all of these would seek out positions on the jobs guarantee program. But a large proportion would, especially those employed in uncertain roles with low levels of job security. In fact, some even paid more than $31,200 might consider leaving their jobs to pursue guaranteed roles if they perceive better working conditions or an easier worklife (asked under what conditions someone would be fired from such a role, the Levy Institute paper suggests that you would be sacked for failing to go to work, but that your performance would not be judged by “private sector ‘efficiency criteria’”, for example.) It’s not inconceivable then that over 25 percent of the labor force could find itself part of the scheme. This crowd‐​out is likely to be particularly acute in low productivity regions, and (ironically) after economic downturns. A nationwide jobs guarantee program paying $15 an hour will be particularly attractive to workers in low wage regions, and by setting a de facto wage floor the program will prevent private investment in regions on the basis of cheap labor. Though no doubt there would be some demand spillovers from well‐​paid jobs, the net consequence is highly likely to be weaker private sector job creation in poor regions, which has been the experience of countries such as Britain with a nationwide minimum wages and public sector national pay bargaining. Proponents of the scheme see “higher labor standards” as a good thing, but absent productivity improvements, policies which raise labor costs significantly will reduce the quantity of workers demanded. There’s good reason to expect the policy will reduce the efficiency and productive potential of the economy too. Taxes will eventually need to be raised to cover the net cost of the program. In infrastructure and care giving provision, costs will rise – because nobody would now work in these directly substitutable sectors for less than the wage and conditions offered in the job guarantee program. This will waste resources, and there’s highly likely to be overinvestment in lots of relatively low value ventures and programs to ensure workers are employed, especially given the explicit aim is to provide employment rather than deliver projects at low cost. Throwing resources at regions with higher levels of unemployment and after recessions too will work directly against market signals and deter the mobility of labor (in geographic and industrial terms) and capital to its most productive uses given prevailing market conditions. This is important: yes, employment is highly likely to have some positive externalities; but the real driver of better living standards over time are productivity improvements, discovered by market‐​based activity. Proponents of this policy seem to put an enormous weight on the idea that time out of the labor market has huge scarring consequences which could be ameliorated by any type of temporary employment. But the literature on this shows that temporary jobs do not provide the workers with skills to improve longer‐​term labor market outcomes.

Adam D.K. King, UBI And Job Guarantees Aren’t The Leftist Solutions We Need, 2020, https://www.readthemaple.com/ubi-and-job-guarantees-arent-the-leftist-solutions-we-need/

The green jobs necessary for a just transition, however, will involve considerable skill and training. These need to be secure, adequately paid public sector jobs. A job guarantee, according to its principal policy architects, is also by definition a temporary employment program. JG jobs, as economics professor L. Randall Wray argues, would grow and contract according to the performance of the private sector labour market. A green transition needs good public sector employment, not temporary minimum wage workfare.

The last problem I will discuss here is the problem of coming up with suitable jobs. This to me remains the biggest challenge that is really not satisfactorily answered in JG programs. Hugh Sturgess has provided the most eloquent articulation of this problem I’ve seen so far. Sturgess argues that JG job ideas, justifications, and criteria combine to form an “impossible quadrilateral:”

[I]t is not possible for JG jobs to display all of the following qualities: requiring only basic skills (needed for universal eligibility); socially beneficial; indifferent to time (as JG work is countercyclical); and distinct from the rest of the public sector. Any attempt to achieve one criterion requires abandoning another.

Adam D.K. King, UBI And Job Guarantees Aren’t The Leftist Solutions We Need, 2020, https://www.readthemaple.com/ubi-and-job-guarantees-arent-the-leftist-solutions-we-need/

What about the JG’s potential as a green jobs program? This is perhaps the most surprising claim of all. There’s no question that transitioning away from fossil fuels and averting the climate crisis will necessitate a massive expansion of public sector employment. But thinking this can be achieved through a minimum wage job guarantee program only confuses matters. Because the JG is fundamentally about guaranteeing employment, it must not include any skills requirements and must provide work to all those who apply.

This paper started from the widely accepted premise by economists writing on vaccines, that vaccines generate a positive externality. The private and social marginal benefts of vaccines do not perfectly align creating room for policy interventions to improve outcomes for everyone involved. However, we argue that vaccine mandates, which are a common policy approach to the externality are weaker than commonly acknowledged in the case of COVID-19 vaccine. We fnd that the presence of a positive externality does not automatically imply freeriding. In fact, most of the benefts for the vaccines developed to battle COVID-19 are internalized. This is because vaccinated individuals are protected from the most severe consequences of the infection, but they can transmit the infection, especially in the case Public Choice (2023) 195:55–72 69 1 3 of newer variants of the novel corona virus. In this sense, the externality is also partially excludable since asymptomatic vaccinated individuals may transmit to the unvaccinated. Given the strong private incentives to vaccinate, the externality may be inframarginal, as defned by Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962); that is, the externalities exist, but they are irrelevant to the policy. Second, even when the efects are not completely internalized, the external benefts are more local than global. Family members infect each other. Coworkers infect each other. The policy response should refect the level of the externality. Therefore, the case for universal vaccine mandates is weaker than often acknowledged within the economics literature. Local public goods allow for more sorting and local “production,” which, in this case, means local incentives to take the vaccine. Finally, if the non-universal adoption of a COVID-19 vaccine is due to preferences and beliefs about the nature/existence of the virus, vaccine, the healthcare system, and government, then the argument is not based on free-riding. Policymakers must their argument in favor of mandates rooted in explanations other than free-riding.

At the start of a contagious disease outbreak, there may be a shortage or absence of countermeasures such as drugs and vaccines. Similarly, there may be regions in the country where the stockpile of drugs and vaccines is limited or the delivery of such supplies will take time because of remoteness. In these circumstances, NPIs, including quarantine, may be the only measures available to combat the outbreak. Modeling studies suggest that quarantine is more effective when implemented earlier in an outbreak, and even a relatively ineffective quarantine may help blunt or slow the epidemic curve, allowing more time for resources to arrive in the area. (Evidence source: synthesis of modeling studies, qualitative evidence synthesis, and case report evidence synthesis. Refer to Section 10, “Other Implementation Considerations,” in Appendix B4 for additional detail.)

“You’ll tell us when you’re worried, right?”∂ That was the question posed to me countless times at the height of the∂ 2014 West African Ebola outbreak. As an infectious disease physician,∂ I was interviewed on outlets such as CNN, NPR, and Fox News about the∂ dangers of the virus, and the answer I gave was always the same:∂ “Ebola is a deadly, scary disease, but it is not that contagious. It∂ will not find the U.S. or other industrialized nations hospitable.”∂ In other words, no, I wasn’t worried—and not because I have a rosy∂ outlook on infectious diseases. I’m well-aware of the damage these∂ diseases are causing around the world: HIV, malaria, tuberculosis; the∂ influenza pandemic that took the world by surprise in 2009; the∂ anti-vaccine movement bumping cases of measles to an all-time∂ post-vaccine-era high; antibiotic-resistant bacteria threatening to∂ collapse the entire structure of modern medicine—all these, like∂ Ebola, are continuously placing an enormous number of lives at risk.∂ But when people ask me if I’m worried about infectious diseases,∂ they’re often not asking about the threat to human lives; they’re∂ asking about the threat to human life. With each outbreak of a∂ headline-grabbing emerging infectious disease comes a fear of∂ extinction itself. The fear envisions a large proportion of humans∂ succumbing to infection, leaving no survivors or so few that the∂ species can’t be sustained.∂ I’m not afraid of this apocalyptic scenario, but I do understand the∂ impulse. Worry about the end is a quintessentially human trait.∂ Thankfully, so is our resilience.∂ For most of mankind’s history, infectious diseases were the∂ existential threat to humanity—and for good reason. They were quite∂ successful at killing people: The 6th century’s Plague of Justinian∂ knocked out an estimated 17 percent of the world’s population; the∂ 14th century Black Death decimated a third of Europe; the 1918∂ influenza pandemic killed 5 percent of the world; malaria is estimated∂ to have killed half of all humans who have ever lived.∂ Any yet, of course, humanity continued to flourish. Our species’∂ recent explosion in lifespan is almost exclusively the result of the∂ control of infectious diseases through sanitation, vaccination, and∂ antimicrobial therapies. Only in the modern era, in which many∂ infectious diseases have been tamed in the industrial world, do people∂ have the luxury of death from cancer, heart disease, or stroke in the∂ 8th decade of life. Childhoods are free from watching siblings and∂ friends die from outbreaks of typhoid, scarlet fever, smallpox,∂ measles, and the like.∂ So what would it take for a disease to wipe out humanity now?∂ In Michael Crichton’s _The Andromeda Strain_, the canonical book in∂ the disease-outbreak genre, an alien microbe threatens the human race∂ with extinction, and humanity’s best minds are marshaled to combat∂ the enemy organism. Fortunately, outside of fiction, there’s no∂ reason to expect alien pathogens to wage war on the human race any∂ time soon, and my analysis suggests that any real-life domestic∂ microbe reaching an extinction level of threat probably is just as∂ unlikely.∂ When humans began to focus their minds on the problems posed by∂ infectious disease, human life ceased being nasty, brutish, and short.∂ Any apocalyptic pathogen would need to possess a very special∂ combination of two attributes. First, it would have to be so∂ unfamiliar that no existing therapy or vaccine could be applied to it.∂ Second, it would need to have a high and surreptitious∂ transmissibility before symptoms occur. The first is essential because∂ any microbe from a known class of pathogens would, by definition, have∂ family members that could serve as models for containment and∂ countermeasures. The second would allow the hypothetical disease to∂ spread without being detected by even the most astute clinicians.∂ The three infectious diseases most likely to be considered∂ extinction-level threats in the world today—influenza, HIV, and∂ Ebola—don’t meet these two requirements. Influenza, for instance,∂ despite its well-established ability to kill on a large scale, its∂ contagiousness, and its unrivaled ability to shift and drift away from∂ our vaccines, is still what I would call a “known unknown.” While∂ there are many mysteries about how new flu strains emerge, from at∂ least the time of Hippocrates, humans have been attuned to its risk.∂ And in the modern era, a full-fledged industry of influenza∂ preparedness exists, with effective vaccine strategies and antiviral∂ therapies.∂ HIV, which has killed 39 million people over several decades, is∂ similarly limited due to several factors. Most importantly, HIV’s∂ dependency on blood and body fluid for transmission (similar to Ebola)∂ requires intimate human-to-human contact, which limits contagion.∂ Highly potent antiviral therapy allows most people to live normally∂ with the disease, and a substantial group of the population has∂ genetic mutations that render them impervious to infection in the∂ first place. Lastly, simple prevention strategies such as needle∂ exchange for injection drug users and barrier contraceptives—when∂ available—can curtail transmission risk.∂ Ebola, for many of the same reasons as HIV as well as several others,∂ also falls short of the mark. This is especially due to the fact that∂ it spreads almost exclusively through people with easily recognizable∂ symptoms, plus the taming of its once unfathomable 90 percent∂ mortality rate by simple supportive care.∂ Beyond those three, every other known disease falls short of what∂ seems required to wipe out humans—which is, of course, why we’re∂ still here. And it’s not that diseases are ineffective. On the∂ contrary, diseases’ failure to knock us out is a testament to just∂ how resilient humans are. Part of our evolutionary heritage is our∂ immune system, one of the most complex on the planet, even without the∂ benefit of vaccines or the helping hand of antimicrobial drugs. This∂ system, when viewed at a species level, can adapt to almost any enemy∂ imaginable. Coupled to genetic variations amongst humans—which open∂ up the possibility for a range of advantages, from imperviousness to∂ infection to a tendency for mild symptoms—this adaptability ensures∂ that almost any infectious disease onslaught will leave a large∂ proportion of the population alive to rebuild, in contrast to the∂ fictional Hollywood versions.∂ While the immune system’s role can never be understated, an even∂ more powerful protector is the faculty of consciousness. Humans are∂ not the most prolific, quickly evolving, or strongest organisms on the∂ planet, but as Aristotle identified, humans are the rational∂ animals—and it is this fundamental distinguishing characteristic∂ that allows humans to form abstractions, think in principles, and plan∂ long-range. These capacities, in turn, allow humans to modify, alter,∂ and improve themselves and their environments. Consciousness equips∂ us, at an individual and a species level, to make nature safe for the∂ species through such technological marvels as antibiotics, antivirals,∂ vaccines, and sanitation. When humans began to focus their minds on∂ the problems posed by infectious disease, human life ceased being∂ nasty, brutish, and short. In many ways, human consciousness became∂ infectious diseases’ worthiest adversary.

Are we safe now from events like this? Or are we more vulnerable? Could a pandemic threaten humanity’s future?10

The Black Death was not the only biological disaster to scar human history. It was not even the only great bubonic plague. In 541 CE the Plague of Justinian struck the Byzantine Empire. Over three years it took the lives of roughly 3 percent of the world’s people.11

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied widely in our daily lives in a variety of ways with numerous success stories. AI has also contributed to dealing with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which has been happening around the globe. This paper presents a survey of AI methods being used in various applications in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak and outlines the crucial role of AI research in this unprecedented battle. We touch on areas where AI plays as an essential component, from medical image processing, data analytics, text mining and natural language processing, the Internet of Things, to computational biology and medicine. A summary of COVID-19 related data sources that are available for research purposes is also presented. Research directions on exploring the potential of AI and enhancing its capability and power in the pandemic battle are thoroughly discussed. We identify 13 groups of problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight promising AI methods and tools that can be used to address these problems. It is envisaged that this study will provide AI researchers and the wider community with an overview of the current status of AI applications, and motivate researchers to harness AI’s potential in the fight against COVID-19. Technology. To combat the pandemic, the power of AI can be fully exploited to support this effort. AI can be utilized for the preparedness and response activities against the unprecedented national and global crisis. For example, AI can be applied to create more effective robots and autonomous machines for disinfection, working in hospitals, delivering food (and medicine) to patients. AI-based NLP tools can be used to create systems that help understand the public responses to intervention strategies, e.g., lockdown and physical distancing, to detect issues by measuring mental health and social anxiety, and to aid governments in making better public policy. NLP technologies can be employed to develop chatbot systems able to remotely communicate and provide consultations to people and patients about the coronavirus. AI can also be used to eradicate fake news on social media platforms to ensure clear, responsible, and reliable information about the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably impacted the lives of people around the globe, and the number of deaths related to the disease keeps increasing worldwide. While AI technologies have penetrated into our daily lives with many successes, they have also contributed to helping humans in the fight against COVID19. This paper has presented a survey of AI applications so far appearing in the literature that are relevant to the COVID-19 crisis responses and control strategies. These applications range from medical diagnosis based on chest radiology images, virus transmission modelling and forecasting based on number of cases time series and IoT data, text mining and NLP to capture the public awareness of virus prevention measures, to biological data analysis for drug discovery. Although various studies have been published, we observe that there are still limited AI applications and the contributions of AI in this battle remain relatively limited. This is partly due to the scarce availability of data about COVID-19 while AI methods normally require large amounts of data for computational models to effectively learn and acquire knowledge. However, we expect that the number of AI studies related to COVID-19 will increase significantly in the months to come as more COVID-19 data, such as medical images and biological sequences, become available. It is promising to observe an increasing number of AI applications being used against the COVID19 pandemic. However, AI methods are not silver bullets. Some limitations and challenges include the lack of (or poor quality of) training and validation data, explainability, and the resulting trust deficit. Significant efforts are needed for an AI system to be effective and useful. These may include appropriate data processing pipelines, model selection, efficient algorithm development, remodelling and retraining, continuous performance monitoring and validation to facilitate continuous deployment and so on. There are AI ethics principles and guidelines that each phase of the AI system life-cycle, i.e., design, development, implementation and ongoing maintenance, may need to adhere to, especially when most AI applications against COVID-19 involve (or affect) human beings. The more AI applications that are proposed, the more these applications need to ensure fairness, safety, explainability, accountability, privacy protection, data security, and also ensure alignment with human values in order to have positive impacts on societal and environmental well-being.