Tag: Put

  • WHO calls for healthy, safe and decent working conditions for all health workers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic

    WHO calls for healthy, safe and decent working conditions for all health workers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic

    On World Day for Safety and Health at Work, the World Health Organization calls upon all governments, employers and workers organizations and the global community to take urgent measures for strengthen countries’ capacities to protect occupational health and safety of health workers and emergency responders respect their rights to decent working conditions, and develop national programmes for occupational health of health workers and to provide them with occupational health services. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ILO has dedicated World Day for Safety and Health at Work 2020 in addressing the outbreak of infectious diseases at work, in particular, on the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Health workers are at the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak response and as such are exposed to hazards that put them at risk of infection. Hazards include pathogen exposure, long working hours, psychological distress, fatigue, occupational burnout, stigma, and physical and psychological violence.

    Infections with COVID-19, insufficient measures for infection prevention and control, occupational safety and health, mental health and psychosocial support for health workers result in high rates of absenteeism and deplete the health workforce – the most precision resources for stopping the COVID outbreak. 

    Key Messages and Facts

    COVID-19 infections among health workers:

    • As of 21 April 2020 countries reported to WHO that over 35, 000 health workers were infected with COVID19. This number is significantly higher because of underreporting.
    • The major occupational risks for COVID19 infection among health workers are: late recognition or suspicion of COVID-19 in patients, working in a higher-risk department, longer duty hours, sub-optimal adherence to infection prevention and control measures, such as hand hygiene practices, and lack of or improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other factors have also been documented, such as inadequate or insufficient IPC training for respiratory pathogens, including the COVID-19 virus, as well as long exposure in areas in healthcare facilities where large numbers of COVID-19 patients were being cared for.
    • The prevention of infections requires the use of appropriate infection prevention and control measures by all health workers, with a special focus on the adherence to hand hygiene and personal protective equipment when caring for COVID-19 patients, as well as a combination of environmental and administrative controls
    • Health workers infected with COVID-19 following exposure in the workplace should have the right to employment injury benefits for occupational disease, including compensation, rehabilitation, and curative services.

    Violence and stigma against health workers:

    • Health workers are at high risk of violence all over the world. Between 8% and 38% of health workers suffer physical violence at some point in their careers. Many more are threatened or exposed to verbal aggression and social stigma because of their work.
    • In the COVID19 crisis, shortage of staff and resources and increasing social tensions result in increased level of violence against health workers and even attacks against health care facilities. Doctors, nurses, security personnel and those who are assisting in testing, tracing contacts and enforcing physical distancing measures to stop COVID-19 experience threats and aggression.
    • WHO calls upon governments, employers and workers organizations to institute measures for zero-tolerance to violence against health workers at the workplace and at the way to and from their workplace, and for intensifying social support and respect for health workers and their families.

    Long working hours and psychosocial hazards for health workers:

    • Many health workers have to work longer or irregular hours because of the increasing demand for health services. In addition, many countries experience shortage of health workers, or junior staff are working in demanding new roles.
    • Health workers face psychosocial hazards, which are exacerbated during emergencies where demands increase and they have to experience risk of infection witness higher suffering or mortality.
    • Long working hours, shift work, high workload and other psychosocial hazards can lead to fatigue, occupational burnout, increased psychological distress or declining mental health – affecting the health of health workers, and the quality and safety of care delivered.
    • WHO calls for adequate staffing levels and clinical rotation in healthcare facilities, measures to minimize psychosocial hazards, and provision of access to mental health and psychosocial support for health workers.

    The annual World Day for Safety and Health at Work on 28 April promotes the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases globally. It is an awareness-raising campaign intended to focus international attention on the magnitude of the problem and on how promoting and creating a safety and health culture can help reduce the number of work-related deaths and injuries.

     

    WHO calls for healthy, safe and decent working conditions for all health workers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic
    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/28-04-2020-who-calls-for-healthy-safe-and-decent-working-conditions-for-all-health-workers-amidst-covid-19-pandemic

    Views: 0

  • WHO reports fivefold increase in cyber attacks, urges vigilance

    WHO reports fivefold increase in cyber attacks, urges vigilance

    Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO has seen a dramatic increase in the number of cyber attacks directed at its staff, and email scams targeting the public at large. 

    This week, some 450 active WHO email addresses and passwords were leaked online along with thousands belonging to others working on the novel coronavirus response. 

    The leaked credentials did not put WHO systems at risk because the data was not recent. However, the attack did impact an older extranet system, used by current and retired staff as well as partners. 

    WHO is now migrating affected systems to a more secure authentication system. 

    Scammers impersonating WHO in emails have also increasingly targeted the general public in order to channel donations to a fictitious fund and not the authentic COVID-19 Solidary Response Fund. The number of cyber attacks is now more than five times the number directed at the Organization in the same period last year. 

    “Ensuring the security of health information for Member States and the privacy of users interacting with us a priority for WHO at all times, but also particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are grateful for the alerts we receive from Member States and the private sector. We are all in this fight together,” said Bernardo Mariano, WHO’s Chief Information Officer. 

    WHO is working with the private sector to establish more robust internal systems and to strengthen security measures and is educating staff on cybersecurity risks. 

    WHO asks the public to remain vigilant against fraudulent emails and recommends the use of reliable sources to obtain factual information about COVID-19 and other health issues. 

    For more information, please visit: www.who.int/covid-19.

     

    WHO reports fivefold increase in cyber attacks, urges vigilance
    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/23-04-2020-who-reports-fivefold-increase-in-cyber-attacks-urges-vigilance

    Views: 0

  • Social Media Trends For 2012 & Beyond

    Although social media marketing is a small component of our service offerings at Anvil & Formic, we?re constantly asked our opinions and advice on the matter. I?ve personally helped clients develop, implement, manage and measure social media campaigns since 1998 (no, that?s not a typo). Since then, I?ve kept a finger on the pulse of the social media industry, and I fear we?re near cardiac arrest. Regardless, I?ve put together the following social media marketing predictions and trends for 2012 and beyond.

    Read More
    http://www.associationofmarketing.org/articles/view.php?article_id=5331

    Views: 0

  • UFC 249 postponed again

    UFC 249 postponed again

    UFC 249 postponed again 1

    LOS ANGELES: The Ultimate Fighting Championship on Thursday scrapped controversial plans to stage a fight card later this month as the United States battles the coronavirus pandemic.

    The mixed martial arts organisation had planned to hold UFC 249 without fans at an undisclosed location, reportedly an Indian tribal reservation in California.

    However in an abrupt U-turn on Thursday, UFC said it had postponed the event at the request of broadcasters ESPN.

    “While the organisation was fully prepared to proceed with UFC 249, ESPN has requested the postponement of the event and subsequent bouts until further notice in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,“ a UFC statement said.

    “UFC looks forward to resuming the full live events schedule as soon as possible.”

    The New York Times reported on Wednesday that UFC chief Dana White planned to hold the event at the Tachi Palace Resort Casino in central California on April 18.

    By staging the event on tribal land, the UFC could have sidestepped state guidelines aimed at halting the spread of COVID-19 infections that have brought sports to a standstill.

    However the move met with resistance from California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who urged the UFC to postpone.

    “This event would involve dozens of individuals flying to California and driving to a casino for a purpose no one can honestly claim is essential,“ Feinstein said in a statement.

    “Going ahead with this event is not the right move.”

    The Ultimate Fighting Championship has already postponed three events after officials were unable to find venues to stage fights amid restrictions put in place to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. – AFP

    UFC 249 postponed again
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/sport/ufc-249-postponed-again-EF2241152

    Views: 0

  • Assuaging Plight Of The Poor In This Perilous Time By Okechukwu Nwanguma

    Assuaging Plight Of The Poor In This Perilous Time By Okechukwu Nwanguma

    Assuaging Plight Of The Poor In This Perilous Time By Okechukwu Nwanguma 2

    Assuaging Plight Of The Poor In This Perilous Time By Okechukwu Nwanguma 3


    Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre has been monitoring and receiving information on public compliance with the Federal Government ordered lockdown in Abuja, Lagos and Ogun states, which contain measures to contain the ravaging Covid-19 pandemic.

    Our monitoring of the compliance with the lockdown and stay-at-home orders in Lagos, Abuja and few other states indicate that most people are finding it difficult to effectively comply for various reasons. 

    First, there are those, who still don’t believe that Covid-19 is a real life-threatening pandemic and that precautionary measures such as social distancing, personal hygiene and other outlined measures can prevent its infection and spread. 

    In fact some have been made to believe that the lockdown is a deception by government to achieve other ulterior motives. Those, who promote this narrative are mainly the apocalyptic Pentecostal ‘Men of God’, who push arguments linking Covid-19 to 5G mobile technology, which they argue is a part of the biblically ordained designs of the Anti-Christ.

    Second, some Nigerians are simply lawless or lack discipline, just like when passengers are asked to switch off their phones prior to flight take off and you still find some people, seemingly ladies and gentlemen, fiddling with their phones.

    To illustrate, a relative of mine called me yesterday to complain that he was arrested by the police somewhere in Lagos when he drove out to buy pap for his baby. I asked him whether he knew about the lockdown order and whether there was nowhere around his neighbourhood he could walk down to buy the pap. He said ‘but other vehicles are on the road’. I told him that he had broken the law as much as those other people. Everybody may not be arrested at once.

    He wanted me to talk to the police officers, who arrested him and ordered him to drive to their station. I asked him what he wanted me to tell them.

    Third, and most significantly, there are yet others, who are forced out of their homes by want and hunger. They can’t stand the site of their tender children crying for hunger.

    As I said elsewhere, majority of the population fall within the poor and vulnerable category. Usually, many feed themselves and their dependents on their daily earnings. They live from hand to mouth.

    Under the prevailing difficult and uncertain situation, many families and individuals are already suffering and starving, just one week into the lockdown, with one more week left to go, with the probability of an extension.

    The Federal Government’s Social Intervention Policy, the so-called conditional cash transfer is not yet addressing mass poverty, deprivation and hunger. The billions, which government announced that it has released and made available for conditional cash transfer to the poor and vulnerable in communities are not reaching the targets. There are still cries of woe and anguish in most communities.

    We have seen videos of caricature of the ‘social intervention’, of food items shared to some communities. In one video, we saw a street in Lagos of over 30 families, who said they were given two loaves of bread and few cups of rice and garri and few condiments (tomato paste sachets) to share. And we see members of the community lamenting and asking how a whole street of over 30 families could be given such quantity of food items not enough to serve one family for two days to share!

    Corruption has become our national culture. A seemingly intractable challenge to our progress and development. Most of our politicians and public office holders are unscrupulously avaricious.

    Given our past experiences where public funds meant for and released to assuage the sufferings of poor and vulnerable communities were  either unconscionably used to ‘cut grasses’ or inexplicably got ‘swallowed by snakes’, we call for transparent and community-based approaches to the management and disbursement of social intervention funds.

    Considering complaints by many local communities about not benefiting from the released billions of naira announced and meant to alleviate poverty and hardship, especially during this difficult and uncertain period, we call for a transparent and effective investigation of the management of the funds so far allocated. Efforts must be put in place to ensure that the funds are not diverted as usual.

    Independent community committees must receive these funds and be charged with identifying those in their midst, who qualify to benefit.

    The management of the funds should be monitored by a multi-stakeholder committee including government and community representatives as well as credible media and civil society representatives.

    Government must put effective measures in place to check corrupt public officials, who want to steal or divert funds meant to relieve the sufferings of the poor and vulnerable people in this perilous times.

    This is the only way to help the people comply with the law and stay at home for now!

    Finally, since government has been announcing huge numbers of beneficiaries of cash transfer program running into millions and claiming to have paid billions, can the government make the system transparent by publishing the names and addresses of the beneficiaries on an electronic portal so that Nigerians can do the verification?

    Okechukwu Nwanguma is the Executive Director of Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre

    Opinion

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    Okechukwu Nwanguma

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    Assuaging Plight Of The Poor In This Perilous Time By Okechukwu Nwanguma
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/08/assuaging-plight-poor-perilous-time-okechukwu-nwanguma

    Views: 0

  • UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm 4

    LONDON: It was early spring when British scientists laid out the bald truth to their government. It was “highly likely,“ they said, that there was now “sustained transmission” of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

    If unconstrained and if the virus behaved as in China, up to four-fifths of Britons could be infected and one in a hundred might die, wrote the scientists, members of an official committee set up to model the spread of pandemic flu, on March 2. Their assessment didn’t spell it out, but that was a prediction of over 500,000 deaths in this nation of nearly 70 million.

    Yet the next day, March 3, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was his cheery self. He joked that he was still shaking hands with everyone, including at a hospital treating coronavirus patients.

    “Our country remains extremely well prepared,“ Johnson said as Italy reached 79 deaths. “We already have a fantastic NHS,“ the national public health service, “fantastic testing systems and fantastic surveillance of the spread of disease.”

    Alongside him at the Downing Street press conference was Chris Whitty, the government’s chief medical adviser and himself an epidemiologist. Whitty passed on the modelling committee’s broad conclusions, including the prediction of a possible 80% infection rate and the consequent deaths. But he played them down, saying the number of people who would be infected was probably “a lot lower” and coming up with a total was “largely speculative.”

    The upbeat tone of that briefing stood in sharp contrast with the growing unease of many of the government’s scientific advisers behind the scenes. They were already convinced that Britain was on the brink of a disastrous outbreak, a Reuters investigation has found.

    Interviews with more than 20 British scientists, key officials and senior sources in Johnson’s Conservative Party, and a study of minutes of advisory committee meetings and public testimony and documents, show how these scientific advisers concluded early the virus could be devastating.

    But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government’s top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at “moderate,“ suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak.

    “You know, there’s a small little cadre of people in the middle, who absolutely did realise what was going on, and likely to happen,“ said John Edmunds, a professor of infectious disease modelling and a key adviser to the government, known for his work on tracking Ebola. Edmunds was among those who did call on the government to elevate the warning level earlier.

    From the outset, said Edmunds, work by scientists had shown that, with only limited interventions, the virus would trigger an “overwhelming epidemic” in which Britain’s health service was not going “to get anywhere near being able to cope with it. That was clear from the beginning.”

    But he said: “I do think there’s a bit of a worry in terms you don’t want to unnecessarily panic people.”

    Johnson, who himself has sickened with the virus, moved more slowly than the leaders of many other prosperous countries to adopt a lockdown. He has been criticised for not moving more swiftly to organise mass tests and mobilise supplies of life-saving equipment and beds. Johnson was hospitalized on April 5 and moved to intensive care the next day.

    It is too soon to judge the ultimate soundness of the UK’s early response. If history concludes that it was lacking, then the criticism levelled at the prime minister may be that, rather than ignoring the advice of his scientific advisers, he failed to question their assumptions.

    Interviews and records published so far suggest that the scientific committees that advised Johnson didn’t study, until mid-March, the option of the kind of stringent lockdown adopted early on in China, where the disease arose in December, and then followed by much of Europe and finally by Britain itself. The scientists’ reasoning: Britons, many of them assumed, simply wouldn’t accept such restrictions.

    The UK scientists were also mostly convinced – and many still are – that, once the new virus escaped China, quarantine measures would likely not succeed. Minutes of technical committees reviewed by Reuters indicate that almost no attention was paid to preparing a programme of mass testing. Other minutes and interviews show Britain was following closely a well-laid plan to fight a flu pandemic – not this deadlier disease. The scientists involved, however, deny that the flu focus ultimately made much difference.

    Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge.

    John Ashton, a clinician and former regional director of Public Health England, the government agency overseeing healthcare, said the government’s advisers took too narrow a view and hewed to limited assumptions. They were too “narrowly drawn as scientists from a few institutions,“ he said. Their handling of COVID-19, Ashton said, shows the need for a broader approach. “In the future we need a much wider group of independent advisers.”

    Michael Cates, who succeeded Stephen Hawking as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, is leading an initiative by the Royal Society, the UK’s leading scientific body, to bring modellers in from other scientific disciplines to help understand the epidemic.

    “Without faulting anyone so far, it’s vital, where there is such a lot at stake, to throw the maximum possible light on the methods, assumptions and data built into our understanding of how this epidemic will develop,“ he told Reuters.

    In a statement to Reuters, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said the government was delivering “a science-led action plan” to contain the outbreak. “As the public would expect, we regularly test our pandemic plans and what we learned from previous exercises has helped us to rapidly respond to COVID-19.”

    A LOW RISK TO THE PUBLIC

    When news came from China in January of a new infectious disease, Johnson had reason to believe his country was well prepared. It had some of the world’s best scientists and a well-drilled plan to deal with potentially lethal pandemics. Perhaps, some scientists say in hindsight, the plan made them slow to adapt.

    For many years, the Cabinet Office – a collection of officials who act as the prime minister’s direct arm to run the government – took the threat of pandemics seriously. Presciently, it rated pandemics as the Number 1 threat to the country, ahead of terrorism and financial crashes.

    At the centre of planning was a small group of scientists, among them Edmunds. His research group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine runs one of the two computer modelling centres for epidemics that have mostly driven government policy. The other is at nearby Imperial College. Edmunds remembers that early in the outbreak, the data from China were sketchy, in the period “where the Chinese were trying to pretend that this wasn’t transmissible between humans.”

    Edmunds and his colleague at Imperial, Neil Ferguson, were part of an alphabet soup of committees that fed advice into the Cabinet Office machinery around the prime minister. Both were founders of the flu pandemic modelling committee, known as SPI-M, that produced the March 2 report warning of more than 500,000 deaths. This committee had met together for nearly 15 years.

    Ferguson did not respond to a request to be interviewed for this article.

    Edmunds and Ferguson were also part of NERVTAG, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. Both too were members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, known as SAGE, that advises the government in times of crisis. SAGE reports directly to Johnson and the government’s main emergency committee, COBRA.

    At first, when NERVTAG met on January 13, it studied information from China that there was “no evidence of significant human to human transmission” of the new virus, according to minutes of the meeting. The scientists agreed the risk to the UK population was “very low.”

    The evidence soon changed, but this wasn’t reflected in the official threat level. By the end of January, scientists in China began releasing clinical data. Case studies published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, showed 17% of the first 99 coronavirus cases needed critical care. Eleven patients died. Another Chinese study, in the same magazine, warned starkly of a global spread and urged: “Preparedness plans and mitigation interventions should be readied for quick deployment globally.”

    Edmunds recalled that “from about mid January onwards, it was absolutely obvious that this was serious, very serious.” Graham Medley, a professor of infectious diseases modelling at the London School and chairman of SPI-M, agreed. He said that the committee was “clear that this was going to be big from the first meeting.” At the end of January, his committee moved into “wartime” mode, he said, reporting directly into SAGE.

    Dr Jon Read, a senior lecturer in biostatistics at the University of Lancaster, also a member of SPI-M, said by the end of January it was apparent the virus had “pandemic potential” and that death rates for the elderly were brutal. “From my perspective within the sort of modelling community, everybody’s aware of this, and we’re saying that this is probably going to be pretty bad,“ he said.

    But the scientists did not articulate their fears forcefully to the government, minutes of committee meetings reveal.

    On January 21, scientists on NERVTAG endorsed the elevation of the UK risk warning from COVID-19 from “very low” to “low.” SAGE met formally for the first time the following day about the coronavirus threat. So did COBRA, which was chaired by Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who would contract the virus himself in late March. He told reporters after the meeting: “The clinical advice is that the risk to the public remains low.”

    In response to questions from Reuters, the government’s Department of Health declined to clarify how the risk levels are defined or what action, if any, they trigger. In a statement, a spokesperson said: “Increasing the risk level in the UK is a belt and braces measure which allows the government to plan for all future eventualities.”

    Two days later, China put the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak began, into a complete lockdown. Hubei, the surrounding province, would follow. But already, 17 passenger flights had flown directly from Wuhan to Britain since the start of 2020, and 614 flights from the whole of China, according to FlightRadar24, a flight-tracking service. That meant thousands of Chinese, some of them potential carriers, had come to Britain. On April 5, scientific adviser Ferguson said he estimated only one-third of infected people reaching Britain had been detected.

    As they watched China impose its lockdown, the British scientists assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK. Among those modelling the outbreak, such stringent counter-measures were not, at first, examined.

    “We had milder interventions in place,“ said Edmunds, because no one thought it would be acceptable politically “to shut the country down.” He added: “We didn’t model it because it didn’t seem to be on the agenda. And Imperial (College) didn’t look at it either.” The NERVTAG committee agreed, noting in its minutes that tough measures in the short term would be pointless, as they “would only delay the UK outbreak, not prevent it.”

    That limited approach mirrored the UK’s longstanding pandemic flu strategy. The Department of Health declined a request from Reuters for a copy of its updated pandemic plan, without providing a reason. But a copy of the 2011 “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011,“ which a spokesman said was still relevant, stated the “working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.”

    According to one senior Conservative Party politician, who was officially briefed as the crisis unfolded, the close involvement in the response to the coronavirus of the same scientific advisers and civil servants who drew up the flu plan may have created a “cognitive bias.”

    “We had in our minds that COVID-19 was a nasty flu and needed to be treated as such,“ he said. “The implication was it was a disease that could not be stopped and that it was ultimately not that deadly.”

    While the UK was prepared to fight the flu, places in Asia like China, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea had built their pandemic plans with lessons learned from fighting the more lethal SARS outbreak that began in 2002, he said. SARS had a fatality rate of up to 14%. As a result, these countries, he said, were more ready to resort to widespread testing, lockdowns and other draconian measures to keep their citizens from spreading the virus.

    Scientists involved in the UK response disagree that following the government’s flu plan clouded their thinking or influenced the outbreak’s course. The plan had a “reasonable worst case” scenario as devastating as the worst predictions for COVID-19, they note.

    Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, and a member of the SPI-M committee, said COVID-19 did behave differently than an expected pandemic flu – for example school closures proved to be far less effective in slowing the spread of the coronavirus. But, broadly, “the government has been consistently responsive to changing facts.”

    By the end of January, the government’s chief medical adviser, Whitty, was explaining to politicians in private, according to at least two people who spoke to him, that if the virus escaped China, it would in time infect the great majority of people in Britain. It could only be slowed down, not stopped. On Jan 30, the government raised the threat level to “moderate” from “low.”

    The country’s medical officers “consider it prudent for our governments to escalate planning and preparation in case of a more widespread outbreak,“ a statement said at the time. Whitty did not respond to questions from Reuters for this article.

    A TIME TO PREPARE

    On the evening of January 31, Boris Johnson sat before a fireplace in 10 Downing Street and told the nation, in a televised address: “This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act in our great national drama.”

    He was talking of finally delivering Brexit, or what he called “this recaptured sovereignty.” Until that moment, Johnson’s premiership had been utterly absorbed by delivering on that challenge.

    With Brexit done, Johnson had the chance to focus on other matters the following month, among them the emerging virus threat. But leaving the European Union had a consequence.

    Between February 13 and March 30, Britain missed a total of eight conference calls or meetings about the coronavirus between EU heads of state or health ministers – meetings that Britain was still entitled to join. Although Britain did later make an arrangement to attend lower-level meetings of officials, it had missed a deadline to participate in a common purchase scheme for ventilators, to which it was invited. Ventilators, vitally important to treating the direst cases of COVID-19, have fallen into short supply globally. Johnson’s spokesman blamed an administrative error.

    A Downing Street aide told Reuters that from around the end of January, Johnson concentrated his attention increasingly on the coronavirus threat, receiving “very frequent” updates at least once per day from mid February, either in person or via a daily dashboard of cases.

    In the medical and scientific world, there was growing concern about the threat of the virus to the UK. A report from Exeter University, published on February 12, warned a UK outbreak could peak within four months and, without mitigation, infect 45 million people.

    That worried Rahuldeb Sarkar, a consultant physician in respiratory medicine and critical care in the county of Kent, who foresaw that intensive care beds could be swamped. Even if disease transmission was reduced by half, he wrote in a report aimed at clinicians and actuaries in mid-February, a coronavirus outbreak in the UK would “have a chance of overwhelming the system.”

    With Whitty stating in a BBC interview on February 13 that a UK outbreak was still an “if, not a when,“ Richard Horton, a medical doctor and editor of the Lancet, said the government and public health service wasted an opportunity that month to prepare quarantine restriction measures and a programme of mass tests, and procure resources like ventilators and personal protective equipment for expanded intensive care.

    Calling the lost chance a “national scandal” in a later editorial, he would testify to parliament about a mismatch between “the urgent warning that was coming from the frontline in China” and the “somewhat pedestrian evaluation” of the threat from the scientific advice to the government.

    After developing a test for the new virus by January 10, health officials adopted a centralised approach to its deployment, initially assigning a single public laboratory in north London to perform the tests. But, according to later government statements, there was no wider plan envisaged to make use of hundreds of laboratories across the country, both public and private, that could have been recruited.

    According to emails and more than a dozen scientists interviewed by Reuters, the government issued no requests to labs for assistance with staff or testing equipment until the middle of March, when many abruptly received requests to hand over nucleic acid extraction instruments, used in testing. An executive at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford said he could have carried out up to 1,000 tests per day from February. But the call never came.

    “You would have thought that they would be bashing down the door,“ said the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity. By April 5, Britain had carried out 195,524 tests, in contrast to at least 918,000 completed a week earlier in Germany.

    Nor was there an effective effort to expand the supply of ventilators. The Department of Health told Reuters in a statement that the government started talking to manufacturers of ventilators about procuring extra supplies in February. But it was not until March 16, after it was clear supplies could run out, that Johnson launched an appeal to industry to help ramp up production.

    Charles Bellm, managing director of Intersurgical, a global supplier of medical ventilation products based outside London, said he has been contacted by more than a dozen governments around the world, including France, New Zealand and Indonesia. But there had been no contact from the British government. “I find it somewhat surprising, I have spoken to a lot of other governments,“ he said.

    Countering such criticism, Hancock, the health minister, said the government is on track to deliver about 10,000 more ventilators in the coming weeks. One reason Britain was behind some countries on testing, he said, was the absence of a large diagnostics industry at the outbreak of the epidemic. “We didn’t have the scale.”

    GAME OVER

    It was during the school half-term holidays in February that frontline doctor Nicky Longley began to realise that early efforts to contain the disease were likely doomed.

    For weeks now, doctors and public health workers had been watching out for people with flu-like symptoms coming in from China. Longley, an infectious diseases consultant at London’s Hospital for Tropical Diseases, was part of a team that staffed a public health service helpline for those with symptoms. The plan, she said, had been to make all effort to catch every case and their contacts. And “to start with, it looked like it was working.”

    But then, bad news. First, on Wednesday the 19th of February, came the shock news from Iran of two deaths. Then, on Friday the 21st, came a death in Italy and a bloom of cases in Lombardy and Veneto regions. Britain has close links to both countries. Thousands of Britons were holidaying in Italy that week.

    “I don’t think anybody really foresaw what was happening in Italy,“ Longley said. “And I think, the minute everybody saw that, we thought: ‘This is game over now.’”

    Until then, Longley said, everyone felt “there was a chance to stamp it out” even though most were sceptical it could be done long-term. But after Iran and Italy, it was obvious containment would not work. The contact tracing continued for a while. But as the cases in London built up, and the volume of calls to the helpline mushroomed, the priority began to shift to clinical care of the serious cases. “At a certain point you have to make a decision about where you put your efforts as a workforce.”

    Edmunds noted that Iran and Italy had hardly reported a case until that point. “And then, all of sudden you had deaths recorded.” There was a rule of thumb that, in an outbreak’s early stages, for each death there were probably 1,000 cases in a community. “And so it was quite clear that there were at least thousands of cases in Italy, possibly tens of thousands of cases in Italy right then.”

    Amid the dreadful news from Italy, the scientists at NERVTAG convened by phone that Friday, 21st February. But they decided to recommend keeping the threat level at “moderate,“ where it had sat since January 30th. The minutes don’t give a detailed explanation of the decision. Edmunds, who had technical difficulties and couldn’t be heard on the call, emailed afterwards to ask the warning to be elevated to “high,“ the minutes revealed. But the warning level remained lower. It’s unclear why.

    “I just thought, are we still, we still thinking that it’s mild or something? It definitely isn’t, you know,“ said Edmunds.

    A spokesman for the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, didn’t directly respond to Reuters questions about the threat level. Asked whether, with hindsight, the scientists’ approach was the right one, the spokesperson said in a statement that “SAGE and advisers provide advice, while Ministers and the Government make decisions.”

    HERD IMMUNITY

    On Sunday, March 1st, Ferguson, Edmunds and other advisers spent the day with NHS public health service experts trying to work out how many hospital beds and other key resources would be needed as the outbreak exploded. By now, Italian data was showing that a tenth of all infected patients needed intensive care.

    The following day, pandemic modelling committee SPI-M produced its “consensus report” that warned the coronavirus was now transmitting freely in the UK. That Thursday, March 5, the first death in the UK was announced. Italy, which reached 827 deaths by March 11, ordered a national lockdown. Spain and France prepared to follow suit.

    Johnson held out against stringent measures, saying he was following the advice of the government’s scientists. He asserted on March 9: “We are doing everything we can to combat this outbreak, based on the very latest scientific and medical advice.”

    Indeed, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, SAGE, had recommended that day, with no dissension recorded in its summary, that the UK reject a China-style lockdown. SAGE decided that “implementing a subset of measures would be ideal,“ according to a record of its conclusions. Tougher measures could create a “large second epidemic wave once the measures were lifted,“ SAGE said.

    On March 12 came a bombshell for the British public. Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, announced Britain had moved the threat to UK citizens from “moderate” to “high.” And he said the country had moved from trying to contain the disease to trying to slow its spread. New cases were not going to be tracked at all. “It is no longer necessary for us to identify every case,“ he said. Only hospital cases would, in future, be tested for the virus. What had been an undisclosed policy was in the open: beyond a certain point, attempts to completely extinguish the virus would stop.

    The same day, putting aside his jokey self, Johnson made a speech in Downing Street, flanked by two Union Jacks and evoking the spirit of Winston Churchill’s “darkest hour” address. He warned: “I must level with you, level with the British public – more families, many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”

    For most Britons, it came as a shock. Several of the next day’s newspapers splashed Johnson’s words on their front pages.

    Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, who chaired SAGE, said in a BBC interview on March 13 that the plan was to simply control the pace of infection. The government had, for now, rejected what he called “eye-catching measures” like stopping mass gatherings such as football games or closing schools. The “aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not to suppress it completely.” Most people would get the virus mildly, and this would build up “herd immunity” which, in time, would stop the disease’s progress.

    But by now, the country was rebelling. Major institutions decided to close. After players began to get infected, the professional football leagues suspended their games. As Johnson still refused to close schools and ban mass gatherings, the Daily Mirror’s banner headline, summing up a widespread feeling, asked on March 13: “Is It Enough?”

    The catalyst for a policy reversal came on March 16 with the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College team. It predicted that, unconstrained, the virus could kill 510,000 people. Even the government’s “mitigation” approach could lead to 250,000 deaths and intensive care units being overwhelmed at least eight times over.

    Imperial’s prediction of over half a million deaths was no different from the report by the government’s own pandemic modelling committee two weeks earlier. Yet it helped trigger a policy turn-around, both in London and in Washington, culminating seven days later in Johnson announcing a full lockdown of Britain. The report also jarred the U.S. administration into tougher measures to slow the virus’ spread.

    Ferguson was now in isolation himself after catching the virus. Testifying by video link to a committee in Parliament, he explained why he and other scientific advisers had shifted from advocating partial social-distancing measures to warning that without a rigorous shutdown, the NHS would be overwhelmed. The reason, he said, lay in data coming out of Italy that showed large numbers of patients required critical care.

    “The revision was that, basically, estimates of the proportion of patients requiring invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, which is only done in a critical care unit, roughly doubled,“ he said.

    Edmunds had a different explanation for the policy shift.

    What allowed Britain to alter course, said Edmunds, was a lockdown in Italy that “opened up the policy space” coupled with new data. First came a paper by Edmunds’ own London School team that examined intermittent lockdowns, sent to the modelling committee on March 11 and validated by Edinburgh University. Ferguson’s revised Imperial research followed.

    Woolhouse, the Edinburgh professor, confirmed the sequence.

    Edmunds said these new studies together had demonstrated that if the British government imposed a lengthy period of tougher measures, perhaps relaxed periodically, then the size of the epidemic could be substantially reduced.

    Still, without a vaccine or effective treatments, it’s going to be hard to avoid a substantial part of the British population getting infected, said Edmunds. “Until you get to a vaccine, there is no way of getting out of this without certainly tens of thousands of deaths,“ he said. “And probably more than that.”

    Now subject to intense public scrutiny, the modelling teams at universities across Britain continue to work on different scenarios for how the world can escape the virus’s clutches. According to Medley, the chairman of the SPI-M pandemic modelling committee, no one now doubts, for all the initial reservations, that a lockdown was essential in Britain.

    Medley added: “At the moment we don’t know what’s going to happen in six months. All we know is that unless we stop transmission now, the health service will collapse. Yep, that’s the only thing we know for sure.” – Reuters

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/home/uk-pm-listened-to-his-scientists-about-covid-19-but-they-were-slow-to-sound-the-alarm-GE2237109

    Views: 0

  • UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban

    UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban

    UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban 5

    UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban 6


     

    Samuel Ugorji and Samuel Buhari, pilots working with Carveton Helicopters, were on Tuesday remanded in prison custody for violating a movement restriction put in place by the Rivers State Government to curb the spread of Coronavirus in the state.

    A magistrate court sitting in Port Harcourt, the state capital, handed down the ruling. 

    Presiding Chief Magistrate, D.D Ihua-Maduenyi, remanded the two pilots at the Port Harcourt Correctional Centre until May 19, 2020 when their trial will commence. 

    See Also

    UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban 7

    PUBLIC HEALTH

    Rivers Governor, Wike, Storms Caverton Helicopters Office Over Violation Of Movement Restriction


    The magistrate ruled that COVID-19 tests should be carried out on the two pilots to ascertain their status.

    The state’s legal team said the act of the two pilots was capable of putting the entire city in danger of contracting Coronavirus. 

     

    Legal

    PUBLIC HEALTH

    Travel

    News

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    SaharaReporters, New York

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    UPDATE: Magistrate Court Remands Two Pilots In Prison Custody For Violating Rivers Movement Ban
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/07/update-magistrate-court-remands-two-pilots-prison-custody-violating-rivers-movement-ban

    Views: 0

  • EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 8

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 9

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 10

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 11


     

    Following several stories by SaharaReporters on the unjust sacking of six nurses attached to the University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Ondo State, the state government has now told the affected persons to deny the reports by the online news publication before being reinstated into service.

    In a letter signed by Adeeyo Babatunde, Director of Administration for the Chief Medical Director, Dr Oluwole Ige, and seen by SaharaReporters, the management of the hospital gave a number of other stringent conditions to five of the affected individuals before they are to be reinstated. 

    See Also

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 12

    Exclusive

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Sacks Nurses For Demanding Payment Of Accumulated Salaries


    The letter reads, “The management of the teaching hospital has considered your letter of apology on the matter and has approved your re-absorption into the services of the teaching hospital on the  following conditions:

    “That you submit two letters from two guarantors that are not less than the grade of a director in the state public service.

    “That you submit a letter that you would be of a good conduct while in the service of the teaching hospital.

    “That you should show evidence of your rebuttal of the malicious publications currently circulating in an online news media.

    “Please note that the effective date of your re-absorption shall be the date you resume duty in your department and the period of your absence will be treated as leave without pay.

    “By this letter, you are hereby instructed to report back to your department after complying with the above stated conditions.” 

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 13


    Recall that after forcefully removing them from service for protesting the non-payment of their salaries, the hospital’s management also coerced them into writing letters of apology after SaharaReporters exposed the injustice and victimisation of the affected nurses.

    The latest twist is however, another way the hospital’s management intends to put fear into the affected nurses to prevent them from demanding their rights while still in the employ of the state government.

    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service 14


    A source on Tuesday confirmed to SaharaReporters that the nurses were summoned to the office of the CMD a few days ago where the letters containing the new conditions were listed. 

    “Although, I cannot really state the outcome of the meeting between the sacked nurses and the management last week, but I am sure it was because of the story over their (affected nurses) sack by the hospital. The management was not really happy about it especially the bashing from the public.

    “Out of the six nurses that were sacked by the management, the hospital still refused to reinstate one of the guys among identified as Peace.

    “He is one of the best hands in his department at the hospital but he is being victimised to leading others to demand for their rights.

    “The hospital’s management is committing this evil despite an order from Governor Rotimi Akeredolu for the nurses to be unconditionally reinstated.”

    One of the affected nurses, who spoke with our correspondent, said he has rejected the conditions attached to the reinstatement.

    He said, “They gave five of us the letters and left one person out but as for me, I see those conditions as a way to further punish us for demanding for our rights.”

    CMD of the hospital, Dr Ige, did not respond to calls or text messages sent to him when contacted by SaharaReporters to react to the issue.

     

    PUBLIC HEALTH

    Exclusive

    News

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    SaharaReporters, New York

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    EXCLUSIVE: Ondo Government Asks Sacked Nurses To Deny SaharaReporters’ Story Before Being Reinstated Into Service
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/07/exclusive-ondo-government-asks-sacked-nurses-deny-saharareporters%E2%80%99-story-being-reinstated

    Views: 0