You spend a lot of time studying all this data etc which I much admire, but you aren't helping yourself and your well being by doing this assuming anything else is the total opposition.
You're tilting at the wrong windmill, old son.Aimed at myself? Thank you for proving one of my points either way by your use of abusive languange.
You want, sorry need, to paint anyone else who has any viewpoint or observation as being a total 'do nothing granny killer' and what you perceive complete opposite because it gives you a strawman to lash out at and feel 'right' against.
You spend a lot of time studying all this data etc which I much admire, but you aren't helping yourself and your well being by doing this assuming anything else is the total opposition.
just thought I'd chip in from an uneducated viewpointAimed at myself? Thank you for proving one of my points either way by your use of abusive languange.
You want, sorry need, to paint anyone else who has any viewpoint or observation as being a total 'do nothing granny killer' and what you perceive complete opposite because it gives you a strawman to lash out at and feel 'right' against.
You spend a lot of time studying all this data etc which I much admire, but you aren't helping yourself and your well being by doing this assuming anything else is the total opposition.
Q: Was that your biggest mistake as chief scientist—not calling SARS-CoV-2 airborne?
A: We should have done it much earlier, based on the available evidence, and it is something that has cost the organization. You can argue that [the criticism of WHO] is unfair, because when it comes to mitigation, we did talk about all the methods, including ventilation and masking. But at the same time, we were not forcefully saying: “This is an airborne virus.” I regret that we didn't do this much, much earlier.
Q: Why didn’t you? What went wrong?
A: I think it's a mixture of things. I was very new in the role of chief scientist, and it had not been defined; what does the chief scientist do during a pandemic? I tried to do what I thought was best. What happens at WHO is that the technical departments do the guidelines, at the science division we just set the norms of how to do guidelines. So it was not my role and neither did anyone ask me to get involved at that stage. … The existing paradigm is based around flu, because most of our pandemic preparedness is flu. And similarly, SARS-1 was very different as a pathogen, so we couldn't fully extrapolate from that. But in the beginning, we had to base it on some things. So, I think what I would say to the next chief scientist: If there's any situation where there's new evidence emerging, particularly from other disciplines, that’s challenging our understanding, get involved early on!
Sometimes, certain member states or interest groups are upset and want us to change the recommendation. So, the chief scientist has to stand very strong at that point.
Q: Can you give an example?
A: A few years ago, we issued a guideline strongly saying that antibiotics should not be used for growth promotion or disease prevention in animals because that contributes to antimicrobial resistance. A couple of member states were very upset. They did not want this recommendation to come out because it affects their industry. We stuck to our guideline, we did not change it.
I don't think you've addressed a single one of the questions that you've been asked about your various apparently evidence-free assertions on this thread.Aimed at myself? Thank you for proving one of my points either way by your use of abusive languange.
You want, sorry need, to paint anyone else who has any viewpoint or observation as being a total 'do nothing granny killer' and what you perceive complete opposite because it gives you a strawman to lash out at and feel 'right' against.
You spend a lot of time studying all this data etc which I much admire, but you aren't helping yourself and your well being by doing this assuming anything else is the total opposition.
Hospitals across the United States are overwhelmed. The combination of a swarm of respiratory illnesses (RSV, coronavirus, flu), staffing shortages and nursing home closures has sparked the state of distress visited upon the already overburdened health-care system. And experts believe the problem will deteriorate further in coming months.
“This is not just an issue. This is a crisis,” said Anne Klibanski, president and CEO of Mass General Brigham in Boston. “We are caring for patients in the hallways of our emergency departments. There is a huge capacity crisis, and it’s becoming more and more impossible to take care of patients correctly and provide the best care that we all need to be providing.”
More than half a million people in the health-care and social services sectors quit their positions in September — evidence, in part, of burnout associated with the coronavirus pandemic — and the American Medical Association says 1 in 5 doctors plan on leaving the field within two years.
I think that nuance will be lost on the antivaxx mouthbreathers, who will no doubt be going "see? Testing is useless, just like vaccination. HRED IMUNITIE"I wont have time to read the report into the faulty test results at the Wolverhampton lab till another day.
However I would say that the estimates of what increase in infections, hospitalisations and deaths these errors caused offer some clues about what good the testing system as a whole was during that phase of the pandemic. It was not a useless thing like some would have us believe.
Immensa lab errors may have led to 23 Covid-19 deaths
A report says 39,000 people may also have been given incorrect PCR results from a private lab.www.bbc.co.uk
Experts believe these problems are a contributing factor to the high levels of deaths being recorded - in recent months 1,000 more deaths a week are being seen than would be expected.
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine believes disruption to emergency care may account for around a quarter of these deaths.
Don't think so, they seem to match the random sampled ONS estimates quite well.Considering the huge decrease in testing compared to earlier stages then its fair to assume the current rise is proportionally greater than the published figures show
How do you feel, compared to first time?Urgh. Second time now. Vaccinated with a booster not long ago.
They want it to be over, the "general mood" is that it's overA bloke came into work today and walked around the spit guard to get far too close (a few inches), even for non-pandemic times.
I told him to step away and he asked why. I told him ‘because of COVID’ and he snorted incredulously, telling me it was gone. I attempted to disabuse him of that notion but he wouldn’t listen, but he did step behind the spit screen.
Where are these people getting their info from? Whoever said it was over?
But - not counting those filled by patients who have tested positive for Covid, even though they may be there mainly for something else - there were 5% fewer beds available in the third quarter of this year than in 2019, the IFS says. The impact of the virus has lasted longer than expected.
IFS research economist Max Warner says: "The NHS is showing clear signs of strain heading into the winter and is treating fewer patients than it was pre-pandemic, across many types of care.
"The real risk, almost three years on from the start of the pandemic, is that the Covid hit to NHS performance is not time-limited.
"Going forward, we need to grapple with the possibility that the health service is just able to treat fewer patients with the same level of resources."