#14. Influenza pandemic preparedness | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

koreaunderground · 4 years ago

Text

(2014/06/11) Scientists condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus

[theguardian.com][1]

[1]: <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/11/crazy-dangerous-creation-deadly-airborne-flu-virus>

# Scientists condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus

Ian Sample

6-8 minutes

* * *

Scientists have created a life-threatening virus that closely resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people in an experiment labelled as "crazy" by opponents.

US researchers said the experiments were crucial for understanding the public health risk posed by viruses currently circulating in wild birds, but critics condemned the studies as dangerous and called on funders to stop the work.

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison used a technique called reverse genetics to build the virus from fragments of wild bird flu strains. They then mutated the virus to make it airborne to spread more easily from one animal to another.

"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said [Lord May][2], the former president of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising form the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."

[2]: <http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/may_r.htm> ()

Influenza viruses circulate freely in wild bird populations. Most remain in chickens, ducks and other birds, but occasionally strains mutate into a form that can infect humans. The H5N1 bird flu strain has killed at least 386 people since 2003, according to WHO figures. The Spanish 1918 flu is thought to have come from birds too.

Writing in the journal [Cell Host and Microbe][3] Yoshihiro Kawaoka describes how his team analysed various bird flu viruses and found genes from several strains that were very similar to those that made up the 1918 human flu virus. They combined the bird flu genes into a single new virus, making a new pathogen that was only about 3% different from the 1918 human virus.

[3]: <http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(14)00163-2> ()

The freshly made virus – the first of several the team created – was more harmful to mice and ferrets than normal bird flu viruses, but not as dangerous as the 1918 strain. It did not spread between ferrets and none of the animals died. But the scientists went on to mutate the virus, to see what changes could make it spread. Seven mutations later, they had a more dangerous version that spread easily from animal to animal in tiny water droplets, the same way flu spreads in humans.

[Kawaoka][4], who led the research in a high-security lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the work highlighted how flu viruses found in wild bird populations had the potential to adapt to humans and cause a pandemic.

[4]: <http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/people/kawaokay/> ()

Follow-up experiments showed that the 2009 swine flu vaccine and the anti-viral drug tamiflu should be effective against the virus. "This is important information for those making decisions about surveillance and pandemic preparedness," Kawaoka told the Guardian.

The work is the latest in a series of controversial studies that have split the scientific community. On the one side are researchers who create dangerous viruses in secure labs in the hope of learning how existing strains could mutate to make them a potential threat to humans. On the other are scientists who argue the work does little or nothing to help protect people, but instead puts the global population in more danger.

[Marc Lipsitch][5], professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, said: "I am worried that this signals a growing trend to make transmissible novel viruses willy-nilly, without strong public health rationale. This is a risky activity, even in the safest labs. Scientists should not take such risks without strong evidence that the work could save lives, which this paper does not provide," he added.

[5]: <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/marc-lipsitch/> ()

In [an article][6] published last month, Lipsitch argued that experiments like Kawaoka's could unleash a catastrophic pandemic if a virus escaped or was intentionally released from a high-security laboratory.

[6]: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/virus-experiments-risk-global-pandemic> ()

But Kawaoka defended the work, saying that critics failed to appreciate the impact of his and others' work on dangerous viruses. "There were discussions on the usefulness of stockpiling H5N1 [bird flu] vaccines until our H5N1 papers were published. Similarly, this paper strongly supports stockpiling anti-influenza drugs. If this is not a 'lifesaving benefit', what is?" he said.

Many of the groups that create dangerous viruses to understand their workings are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Lord May said he suspected the NIH supported the work because officials there were "incompetent" and believed the justifications that scientists told them. "This is work that shouldn't be done. It's as simple as that," he said.

The experiments show that a 1918-like flu virus could emerge in the wild as bird viruses swap genes and mutate. "Influenza viruses readily swap genes to generate new viruses, so something like this could happen, especially since many of these viruses have circulated in recent years," Kawaoka said. The viruses "have the potential to become adapted to mammals and possibly cause a human pandemic," he added.

The study identifies particular mutations that made the virus spread so easily. But that is not much use for surveillance, said Lipsitch, because there are scores of other mutations that could have the same effect. "The chance that a virus very similar to the one they study will appear in nature is extremely remote," he said. Kawaoka argues that his team is fully aware of this, and that the underlying mechanisms that make the virus so dangerous are more important for preventing future pandemics.

[Simon Wain-Hobson][7], a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said he feared that governments and funding bodies would only take the risks seriously once an accident had happened. "It's madness, folly. It shows profound lack of respect for the collective decision-making process we've always shown in fighting infections. If society, the intelligent layperson, understood what was going on, they would say 'What the F are you doing?'"

[7]: <https://www.pasteur.fr/ip/easysite/pasteur/en/research/scientific-departments/virology/units-and-groups/molecular-retrovirology> ()

Carole Heilman, director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Niaid) in the US, said: "This study was conducted as part of a research project on understanding the molecular mechanisms of virulence of the 1918 influenza virus. NIH peer review determined that the research was scientifically meritorious. It was also determined that the information gained had the potential to help public health agencies in their assessment of circulating and newly emerging strains. In addition, NIH determined that all the research was being done under appropriate biosafety conditions and with appropriate risk mitigation measures."

#covid #GOF #2014

5 notes · View notes

veye-pty-ltd · 2 years ago

Text

Top 5 ASX 200 Healthcare Stocks for 2022

ASX 200 healthcare stocks had a spectacular bull run at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most healthcare stocks appreciated significantly in the last two years. However, the bull run for healthcare stocks is not over. The pandemic showed the under-preparedness of the healthcare sectors of most countries to deal with a healthcare crisis of such a scale. Therefore, we expect a significant increase in healthcare spending, which will continue to benefit healthcare and pharma companies.

Healthcare is an important defensive sector along with utilities and consumer goods. Investing a portion of total investible funds in defensive sector like healthcare is a good hedge against inflation. Also, defensive sector investment can lower the overall risk of the portfolio. An ideal portfolio, therefore, should include both growth as well as defensive sectors in the right mix. Healthcare is probably the most important defensive sector as healthcare spending is not affected much even if there is an economic downturn.

The healthcare sector as a whole is going through a re-rating which reflects its long-term potential. According to estimations, earnings of the ASX 200 healthcare companies are expected to grow by 14% annually in the next few years. With expected economic recoveries and higher healthcare spending across the world, we remain bullish on the healthcare sector.

Here are our top five ASX 200 healthcare stocks for 2023.

1. CSL Limited (ASX: CSL)

About the company

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) is a leading healthcare company in Australia. It has a wide portfolio of businesses serving all healthcare verticals. CSL Behring is a global leader in dealing with rare and serious diseases. CSL Seqirus is a major influenza vaccine supplier in the world. CSL Plasma is the world's largest plasma collection company. The most recent division CSL Vifor deals with iron deficiency and nephrology. The company has a current market capitalization of $142.13 billion.

Stock Information

The previous closing price of the stock was $293.7. It is currently trading at a PE ratio of 41.24. Its current earnings per share are $5.08. The stock is currently trading at an attractive valuation as it has corrected by 5.33% in the last 1 year. However, the stock has outperformed the entire pharma sector by 5.63% in the same period. This reflects the relative attractiveness of the stock compared to its peers.

The company posted a full-year profit of $2.25 billion, which was in line with Bloomberg estimates of US$2.26bn and better than Morgan Stanley’s forecasts of US$2.18bn. The company anticipates strong growth in plasma collections and plasma therapies. The guidance for net profit after tax in FY23 is US$2.4 billion to US$2.5 billion, which means a growth of around 6.5% to 11%.

2. Mayne Pharma (ASX: MYX)

About the company

Mayne is an ASX-listed specialty pharma company that commercializes branded and generic drugs. In the last 40 years, the company has developed new oral drug delivery systems and commercialized numerous products around the world.

The primary business of Mayne is developing and manufacturing proprietary and generic pharmaceuticals. It has two main development and manufacturing centers based in Salisbury, Australia, and Greenville, North Carolina, US. Mayne specializes in various complex oral dosage forms such as potent compounds, modified-release products, and poorly soluble compounds.

The company has a current market cap of $469,750,187

Stock Information

The previous closing price of the stock was $0.27. The stock has corrected significantly in the last 1 year. It is currently trading at 15.6% lower as compared to 1 year before. This makes the current valuation of the stock very attractive for long-term investors.

The company reported revenues of $424.8m, up 6% from FY21. It also reported a 40% increase in its branded products revenue. The company is expected to get a substantial amount of cash injection after agreeing to sell its Metrics Contract Services business to Catalent for US$475 million.

3. Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals (ASX: CUV)

Clinuvel is an ASX-listed global pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes treatments for various systematic, metabolic, genetic, and acute disorders. In addition, it develops various healthcare solutions for the general population.

The primary product of Clinuvel is SCENESSE which is used in the treatment of a range of skin disorders.

The current market capitalization of the company is $950,654,903.

Stock Information

The last closing price of the stock was $19.24. The current earnings per share are $0.471. The stock is trading at a very attractive valuation as it has corrected around 52.79% in the last 1 year. However, buying momentum is building up as the stock has recovered 10.83% in the last 1 week.

In the last financial reports, the firm reported revenue of $67 million (up 38%) and a profit of $21 million (up 15.6%). The company is experiencing a major pick in its commercial operations and demands. The company is pursuing several R&D projects which would add future value to the stock. Overall, Clinuvel is a strong investment-grade stock.

4. Neuren (ASX: NEU)

Neuren is an ASX-listed biopharmaceutical company that focuses mainly on neurological disorders, neurodevelopment, neurodegenerative disorders, brain injury, etc. The company is currently developing two drugs for several serious neurological disorders in early childhood, for which there are no drugs currently.

In a major development for the company, the US partner of Nauren submitted an application to US FDA for trofinetide, a drug that treats Rett syndrome in adults and pediatric patients aged two years and older. This development has the potential to be a great commercial success for the company.

The current market capitalization of the company is s $806,180,326.

Stock Information

The last closing price of the stock was $6.40. The stock currently has great momentum. It has appreciated by 175.86% in the last 1 year. Also, it has outperformed the healthcare sector by 186.75% in the last 1 year. The great momentum and outperformance show the high level of demand for the stock driven by a strong future potential.

5. Probiotec Limited (ASX: PBP)

Probiotec is an ASX-listed company that deals with the development, manufacturing, and sale of pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and consumer health products. It offers contract manufacturing and packing services. It has world-class facilities for developing and contract manufacturing pharmaceutical products in locations across Australia.

The current market capitalization of the company is $177,285,025.

Stock Information

The last closing price of the stock was $2.18. The current earnings per share of the stock are $0.106. The stock has remained mostly flat in the last 1 year. It is currently trading 0.91% down compared to 1 year before. However, the stock has outperformed the sector by around 10% in the same period. It has also outperformed the broader ASX 200 index by 9.73% in the last 1 year.

Read more - https://veye.com.au/article/top-5-asx-200-healthcare-stocks-for-2022

#veyeptyltd asx200 asxstocks healthcare australia

0 notes

rishabhcmi · 4 years ago

Text

INFLUENZA THERAPEUTICS MARKET ANALYSIS (2020-2027)

Influenza is a condition that causes contagious illness. It is characterized by sudden onset of fever, headache, sore throat, non-productive cough, and rhinitis. Usually infection lasts for about a week. Over the course of a flu season, different types and subtypes of influenza can cause illness in humans. There are four types of influenza virus such as A, B, C, and D. Influenza A and B virus causes most of the illness in humans. Prolonged influenza infections can cause severe complications such as pneumonia, bronchitis, acute respiratory distress, secondary bacterial infections, and cardiovascular complications. To control the illness caused by influenza virus, influenza antiviral prescription drugs can be used.

Influenza Therapeutics Market: Drivers

New drug approvals for the treatment of influenza is expected to drive the influenza therapeutics market growth. For instance, in October 2018, Roche announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Xofluza (TM) (baloxavir marboxil) for the treatment of acute, uncomplicated influenza or flu, in people 12 years of age and older.

Increasing number of clinical pipeline studies is expected to boost the influenza therapeutics market growth during the forecast period. For instance, in January 2018, Romark Laboratories L.C. initiated the phase 3 clinical trial for Nitazoxanide to evaluate its efficacy and safety in the treatment of uncomplicated influenza. Nitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic and broad-spectrum antiviral drug, used in the treatment of intestinal parasitic infections caused by Cryptosporidium parvam and Giardia lamblia. This study is expected to be completed in April 2019.

Moreover, in November 2018, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, initiated phase 4 clinical trial study for egg-based influenza vaccines to study the realistic evaluation of influenza vaccine effectiveness in active duty members, military retirees, and other Department of Defense (DOD) beneficiaries.

Furthermore, rising initiatives by various sponsors to conduct phase 1 clinical trial to study the safety parameter of anti-influenza drugs is expected to drive the market growth. For instance, in October 2018, Emory University started phase 1 clinical trial for seasonal influenza vaccine. The study has been designed to evaluate the impact of imprinting and repeated influenza vaccination on adaptive immunity, transcriptomics, and metabolomics. The study is expected to be completed in July 2020.

Influenza Therapeutics Market: Restraints

Influenza vaccines have several limitations including relatively long production times, limited vaccine capacity, moderate efficacy in certain people, and lack of cross-reactivity, which is projected to restrain growth of the influenza therapeutic market during the forecast period. Moreover, increasing concerns among people about the side effects of vaccines hamper growth of the influenza therapeutic market. For instance, in October 2018, according to the National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) at the University of Chicago survey, around 43% of the adults were vaccinated and 14% plans to receive the flu shot. However, around 41% of the American people reported that they are not vaccinated and do not intend to get vaccinated, as adults were most likely to cite concerns about side effects of the vaccine.

Influenza Therapeutics Market: Regional Analysis

On the basis of region, the global influenza therapeutics market is segmented into North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East, and Africa.

North America holds dominant position in the market, owing to high presence of key players such as GlaxoSmithKline plc and Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The regulatory agencies in the region select influenza viruses that are required for developing the influenza vaccine. In March 2018, FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) conducted a meeting to select the influenza viruses for the composition of the influenza vaccine. In the meeting, VRBPAC recommended the trivalent formulation of influenza vaccines for influenza A including A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus, A/Singapore/INFIMH-16–0019/2016 (H3N2)-like virus, and B/Colorado/06/2017-like virus (B/Victoria lineage). The committee also recommended that quadrivalent influenza vaccines contain the above three strains and the following additional B strain: a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage).

Asia Pacific is also expected to witness significant growth in the influenza therapeutics market, owing to increasing initiatives by the Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza (APACI), to reduce the burden of influenza by enhancing control measures and boosting pandemic preparedness in the region, through the provision of educational information and activities.

Europe have also gained significant position in the market, owing to increasing initiatives by European Medical Association (EMA) during an influenza pandemic season leading to continuous monitoring of safety of centrally authorized pandemic influenza vaccines and antiviral medicines, and fast-track review of data for the authorization of pandemic influenza vaccines for use in all EU Member States. Also, increasing number of public awareness programs for the prevention and diagnosis of influenza resulted in significant growth of the influenza therapeutics market in this region.

Key players operating in the global influenza therapeutic market include Daiichi Sankyo Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Natco Pharma, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sandoz International GmbH (Novartis AG), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., BiondVax Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Atriva Therapeutics Gmbh, Texas Medical Center, Life Science Austria (LISA), GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Sanofi Pasteur SA and Mylan, Inc.

Influenza Therapeutics Market: Taxonomy

By Drug Type

Antivirals

Vaccine

Oseltamivir

Zanamivir

Peramivir

Baloxavir Marboxil

Quadrivalent Flu Vaccines

Trivalent Flu Vaccines

By Virus Type

Influenza Virus Type- A

Influenza Virus Type-B

By Age Group

Pediatrics

Adult

By Region

North America

Europe

Asia Pacific

Latin America

Middle East

Africa

Request the sample copy of here:

https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/2443

Download the PDF Brochure here:

https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-pdf/27443

Buy now the market research report here:

https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/buy-now/2443

About Us:

Coherent Market Insights is a global market intelligence and consulting organization focused on assisting our plethora of clients achieve transformational growth by helping them make critical business decisions.

What we provide:

Customized Market Research Services

Industry Analysis Services

Business Consulting Services

Market Intelligence Services

Long term Engagement Model

Country Specific Analysis

Explore CMI Services here

Mr. Shah

Coherent Market Insights Pvt. Ltd.

Address: 1001 4th ave, #3200 Seattle, WA 98154, U.S.

Phone: +1-206-701-6702

Email: [email protected]

Source:

https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/ongoing-insight/influenza-therapeutics-market-2443

0 notes

speedylightheart · 4 years ago

Text

Europe Biodefense Market Is Slated To Grow Rapidly In The Coming Years (2020 – 2025)

Global Biodefense market is valued at USD 5.31 Billion in 2018 and expected to reach USD 7.22 Billion by 2025 with the CAGR of 4.5 %over the forecast period.

Favorable government initiatives, Increase in the number of naturally occurring outbreaks, and increasing threat of biological weapons and nuclear armed ICBM are some of the major factors driving the growth of global biodefense market

Biodefense constitutes the use of medical measures to protect individuals against bioterrorism including interventions such as drugs and vaccinations but also research and public health preparations to defend against such biological attack. It refers to measures taken to restore biosecurity of organisms which are, subject to biological threats or infectious diseases. The goal of biodefense is to integrate the sustained efforts of the national and homeland security, medical, public health, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement communities. Health care providers and public health officers are among the first lines of defense. In some countries private, local, and provincial capabilities are being increased and coordinated with federal assets, to provide layered defenses against biological weapons attacks. Biodefense is an emerging industry that offers new opportunities for both existing and new drug companies, as well as for biotechnology companies with technologies for drug discovery and pathogen detection.

Get Sample Copy of This Premium Report: @ https://industrystatsreport.com/Request/Sample?ResearchPostId=12902&RequestType=Sample

Global biodefense market report is segmented on the basis of product type, application and regional& country level. Based upon product type biodefense market is classified into anthrax, small pox, botulism, radiation and others. Based upon application biodefense market is classified into medical hygiene and national defense.

The regions covered in this Global Biodefense market report are North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World. On the basis of country level, market of Biodefense is sub divided into U.S., Mexico, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, India, South East Asia, GCC, Africa, etc.

Biodefense Companies

Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.

Emergent BioSolutions, Inc.

DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC

SIGA Technologies

PharmAthene, Inc.

Cleveland BioLabs

Ichor Medical Systems

Achaogen, Inc.

Xoma Corporation

Dynavax Technologies Corporation

Bavarian Nordic

others.

Favorable government initiatives, increase in the number of naturally occurring outbreaks, and increasing threat of biological weapons and nuclear armed ICBM are some of the major factors driving the growth of global biodefense market. Government and outside experts have both criticized and supported these efforts. Widespread deployment of environmental bio surveillance technologies by the federal government began after the anthrax mailings, and federal efforts to further develop these technologies have also increased. For instance, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, between 2016 and 2017, nearly 30 Million people suffered from influenza in the country. Biodefense techniques, such as vaccinations against influenza help reduce the illness by 17% and medical visits and hospitalizations by 18 to 19% respectively. Growing prevalence of Ebola and Zika virus infections is also likely to contribute to the market development. For instance, according to the World Health Organization, More than 28,000 people were infected, and over 11,000 people died before the international public health emergency ended in June 2016. As the world’s population swells, so will the number of outbreaks and the people impacted. Coronavirus COVID-19 is part of a pattern of increasingly frequent epidemics that have coincided with globalization, urbanization and climate change. As Coronavirus spreads, so does the sobering reality that epidemics will become more common with increasingly connected age. Real Time Statistics Project estimated that there are currently 1,939,028 confirmed cases and 120,871 deaths from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of April 14, 2020. The total number of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the world is shrinking as the major powers scale back their inventories through unilateral reductions and arms control, but other countries and groups still try to acquire these weapons. However, low R&D funding by government in developing and underdeveloped economies are expected to restraint the growth of the biodefense market during the forecast years. Biodefense industry will experience lucrative growth opportunities if the government takes frequent preventive measures to assure safety of population and the economy.

North America is dominating the Biodefense Market

North America is expected to dominate the growth of Biodefense Market, due to Supportive government initiatives in medical countermeasure preparedness against biological threats. U.S. government implements several initiatives that help them in strengthening security against bioterrorism attacks. With the World Health Organization (WHO), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S. Blue Ribbon panel publishing reports on the emerging risks of biological weaponry in recent months, there is a new sense of urgency regarding biological weapons. In August 2016, the United Nations Secretary General told the Security Council that non-state actors are actively seeking chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Government plans several biodefense programs such as pandemic influenza and infectious disease program. Government initiates several programs focused on preparedness and prevention intentional or accidental releases of biological material will stimulate the U.S. biodefense market in forthcoming years. Europe is second largest region for Biodefense market growth, due to increase in the Number of Naturally Occurring Outbreaks. Between 2015 and week 12 of 2019, 22 EU/EEA Member States reported 2,398 travel-associated ZIKV infections through the European Surveillance System (TESSy). France reported 48% of the cases, Spain 15% and the UK 9%.

Key Benefits for Global Biodefense Market Reports –

Global market report covers in depth historical and forecast analysis.

Global market research report provides detail information about Market Introduction, Market Summary, Global market Revenue (Revenue USD), Market Drivers, Market Restraints, Market opportunities, Competitive Analysis, Regional and Country Level.

Global market report helps to identify opportunities in market place.

Global market report covers extensive analysis of emerging trends and competitive landscape.

Global Biodefense Market Segmentation –

By Type:- Anthrax, Small Pox, Botulism, Radiation, Others

By Application:- Medical hygiene, National defense

Regional & Country Analysis North America, U.S., Mexico, Canada , Europe, UK, France, Germany, Italy , Asia Pacific, China, Japan, India, Southeast Asia, South America, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, The Middle East and Africa, GCC, Africa, Rest of Middle East and Africa

Buy Detail Report @

Other Related Reports:

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/12/2125360/0/en/Home-Healthcare-Market-projected-to-exceed-293-6-billion-by-2026-Says-Brandessence-Market-Research.html

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/24/2132548/0/en/At-CAGR-of-14-67-Contact-Center-Software-Market-Size-worth-38-83-Billion-by-2025-says-Brandessence-Market-Research.html

About us: Brandessence Market Research and Consulting Pvt. ltd.

Brandessence market research publishes market research reports & business insights produced by highly qualified and experienced industry analysts. Our research reports are available in a wide range of industry verticals including aviation, food & beverage, healthcare, ICT, Construction, Chemicals and lot more. Brand Essence Market Research report will be best fit for senior executives, business development managers, marketing managers, consultants, CEOs, CIOs, COOs, and Directors, governments, agencies, organizations and Ph.D. Students. We have a delivery center in Pune, India and our sales office is in London.

0 notes

khalilhumam · 5 years ago

Text

As COVID-19 spreads in ICE detention, oversight is more critical than ever

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/as-covid-19-spreads-in-ice-detention-oversight-is-more-critical-than-ever/

As COVID-19 spreads in ICE detention, oversight is more critical than ever

By John Hudak, Christine Stenglein On May 6th, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) announced the first COVID-19 death of an immigrant detainee. Detainee deaths were bound to happen in a system that houses tens of thousands of individuals, and in which ICE has so far reported that 943 detainees have tested positive—an infection rate of 1 in 31. Additionally, 108 ICE employees at detention facilities have tested positive. The ultimate spread and lethality of COVID-19 will depend on ICE’s response to the pandemic. In March, in response to the COVID crisis, ICE organized a working group that issued new agency-wide requirements and recommendations for detention facilities. These policies are intended to keep detainees and staff safe and healthy and ensure that when individuals are sick, they are treated and isolated from healthy individuals. The question becomes whether ICE detention facilities—with well-documented failures in meeting agency standards—will implement these new policies comprehensively and effectively. It will be critical, during the COVID-19 pandemic, for the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS IG) to monitor ICE’s performance. ICE’s response to COVID-19 and potential implementation problems The spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention facilities reflects a challenge that is happening in prison systems generally: individuals locked in close quarters are at significant risk for disease transmission. What’s more, some of the ICE facilities affected sit in or near counties that are COVID-19 hotspots. These include the Hudson County and Elizabeth facilities in New Jersey, several facilities in Louisiana, and the Stewart facility in Georgia, among others. We have written on this blog about the risks of disease transmission not simply from detainees, but from staff who leave the facility and interact in surrounding communities and can then bring illness on their next shift. COVID-19 makes this risk even more significant as some carriers of the disease are asymptomatic. And while waiting until March to organize the new ICE working group was troubling, its recommendations are serious and intended to create meaningful change. Although it is controversial, some states are releasing non-violent prisoners in order to slow the spread of COVID-19 within jails and prisons. Similarly, ICE has also decided it might be wise to release some detainees and it has issued two rounds of guidance for considering the release of individuals with heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. On March 18th, all ICE field offices were ordered to review the cases of pregnant detainees as well as those over the age of 70. On April 4th, that was amended to lower the minimum age for review to 60, to include detainees who had given birth within the last two weeks, and require review of all cases in which a detainee has a chronic condition impacting their immunity. However, if the individual has been arrested for or convicted of a crime, review by higher-level officials is mandatory. The need to release detainees is two-pronged: to get vulnerable people out of harm’s way and to prevent crowding. The April 10th requirements state that “Efforts should be made to reduce the population to approximately 75% of capacity.”[1] Requiring field offices to review at-risk detainees is a step in the right direction and is laudable; however, it is unclear whether reducing populations to 75% will still allow sufficient distancing among detainees to provide a safe environment. The agency should demonstrate that 75% is not an arbitrary number, but one that ensures health and safety. Next, isolation for ill detainees is mandatory, and quarantine for new detainees to the facility is urged but not strictly required. Cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection must be housed separately, adhering to CDC guidelines for medical isolation “depending on the space available.” Isolated detainees may be housed together only if they all have laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19. “Considerable effort should be made,” under the new guidelines, to keep any new detainees in quarantine for 14 days before introducing them into the general population. One of the key strategies for reducing the spread of COVID-19—simple hand hygiene—is also covered in the ICE requirements. Problems with sanitation and hygiene in ICE detention were well-documented in 2019. But on hand-washing, at least, the requirements are helpfully specific, stating that all facilities must: “Provide detainees and staff no-cost, unlimited access to supplies for hand cleansing, including liquid soap, running water, hand drying machines or disposable paper towels, and no-touch trash receptacles.” Hand sanitizer is to be provided “where permissible.” Finally, ICE has changed course on its policy not to vaccinate detainees against influenza. Given the preventable deaths that have occurred in recent years due to influenza, this move is a positive one. The requirements could be stronger, however; they currently say to offer the vaccine to all detainees and staff “where possible.” These conditional statements within ICE guidance around hand hygiene and vaccinations present serious concerns. ICE requests facilities to take specific actions “whenever possible,” or “to the extent possible” (as is the case for detainees having individual rooms). At the same time that it’s making positive policy choices, ICE is offering facilities the discretion not to meet some recommendations. This leeway is especially concerning an immigrant detention system that has a history of failing to meet even minimum requirements for detainee health and safety. The Homeland Security Inspector General must take charge The COVID-19 pandemic and the virus’s presence in the detention system presents a policy crisis. If those previous ICE failures continue, their effects may be magnified by the pandemic. It will be essential to understand both in real time, and as an after-action report, ICE’s effectiveness at managing the pandemic. Throughout government, the IGs (Inspectors General) are the entities charged with conducting independent oversight, and the DHS IG would ordinarily be the agency best-positioned to monitor the situation. However, it is not at all clear that the DHS IG will be rigorous in its evaluation of ICE’s performance according to standard policies set forth by law and regulation as well as the emergency requirements and recommendations from the ICE COVID-19 working group. One piece of evidence of a stifled DHS IG is the fact that the office has sharply decreased its oversight in the past three years. Whereas in 2016 it released 147 reports, this year so far it has released 31. In March, the Washington Post reported that not only had the Inspector General avoided making routine testimony to Congress, the office itself was sometimes deserted.

Fiscal Year Number of Reports* 2012 191 2013 178 2014 155 2015 161 2016 147 2017 120 2018 89 2019 67 2020 31 *Includes management reports and grant reports.

Worryingly, the OIG’s most recent report pertaining to immigration enforcement framed its conclusions in language that could have been lifted from the president’s own political talking points. It claims that ICE was impeded by “uncooperative jurisdictions” from preventing aliens from committing “more crimes.” The report failed to fully articulate the reasons for non-cooperation on the part of law enforcement agencies.[2] It briefly touches on this point, stating for example “Officials of other jurisdictions cited fear of litigation for wrongful detention or erroneous detainers,” but quickly pivots to citing three cases in which an alien was released from custody and committed further crimes (p9). Anecdotal examples such as these are not the typical stock-in-trade of inspectors general, particularly not to gloss over real complexities and conflicts that exist within the realm of a given audit. ICE eagerly took up the report’s conclusions, issuing a statement echoing that local law enforcement jurisdictions prevent it from apprehending aliens who have committed crimes and allow those individuals to commit more. In light of the threat COVID-19 presents to the population detained by ICE, it’s particularly urgent for the DHS IG to perform effective oversight of ICE on an ongoing basis. It will need to closely monitor whether ICE facilities are adhering to the new requirements for preparedness, prevention and management. And it must avoid political framings of COVID-19 that have hampered the government’s response in so many areas. The hope is that, given the grave threat that COVID-19 presents, the DHS IG can regain its footing with regard to ICE oversight and ensure that the agency’s science-based requirements are being met.

[1] The ICE website notes reductions to 70%. [2] In the early days of the Trump administration, DHS had a short-lived, name-and-shame campaign against law enforcement agencies that declined to detain people on behalf of ICE. The Declined Detainer Reports were quickly scrapped, in part because they contained inaccuracies. Perhaps unintentionally, they provide an informative view of the case for non-cooperation. Most jurisdictions required an order from a judge in order to detain an individual and do not accept the administrative warrants provided by ICE.

0 notes

illionoisprelawland-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Judge Rules In Time Of Coronavirus: Stay-At-Home Order Not Needed for All In Illinois

By Beverly Batts II, University of Chicago Class of 2023

May 8, 2020

The current pandemic, Coronavirus 19, has infiltrated each aspect of our lives. The trips to the grocery store, to the daily commute, and the location of work have all been governed with precautions on how to safely and effectively not contract coronavirus. As the number of cases begin to decrease in states, some states have pushed to reopen with aspirations to return their economies to how they were prior to when the pandemic made its way to the United States. This stress on the economy has forced some countries to decide to reopen, yet some go without definitive plans on how to reopen.

The state of Illinois, unlike states such as Nevada, Georgia, and Florida, has decided to renew its stay at home order until the 30th of May with the intent to see at least 14 days of decreased reported cases of coronavirus. However, there are individuals, such as an Illinois GOP, Darren Bailey, who recently sued Illinois and was exempted by the stay at home order by a judge. The state representative and plaintiff in this case, Darren Bailey, stated that “The governor was just clearly overreaching his authority and powers”¹.

Darren Bailey is the state representative of Illinois in 109th district in Louisville, IL with a population of 1,200. There are currently no known cases in Louisville cases for coronavirus, the closest being in Clay County with 2 reported cases. With the premise that Louisville does not have any known cases, Bailey argues that the governor is grossly overstating the boundaries of other countries that do not have coronavirus and focusing on big cities, such as Chicago with 52,918 confirmed cases of coronavirus.² Bailey states that, “Our governor has acted as if he knows best, but he does not know what’s best for all 12 million residents in our state..” He further states that the lawsuit against the governor “is the mechanism by which ‘we the people will be allowed to govern ourselves as our constitution demands.”³ Such sentiments were echoed by Cindy Backstein while speaking to the Chicago Tribune, “Her support for Bailey is driven by her economic anxiety and her dissatisfaction with Pritzker, whom she believes is focusing all of his attention on the Chicago area while discounting the circumstances in the rest of the state.”⁴

Bailey’s legal argument focused on the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan where the purpose is “is to provide a framework for local, state and federal public health and medical officials to work together to reduce morbidity, mortality and social disruption that would result from a pandemic influenza outbreak.”⁵ The plan further defines the type of community containment strategies as to prevent further spread of the outbreak with guidelines by the CDC. For widespread community quarantine, it states, “Legally enforceable order that restricts movement into or out of the area of quarantine of a large group of people or community” with the application being applied to the group or settings that have “extensive ongoing transmission” and “high numbers of cases without pre-established epi-links.”⁵. The provisions of having “extensive transmission” and “high numbers of cases” does not apply to the smaller counties of Illinois that do not have the same magnitude of residents nor people infected with COVID-19. Due to these attributions not being applicable to the district that Bailey resides in and that it has been over thirty days since Pritzker’s first order, this is the reason why the judge favored the plaintiff rather than Governor Pritzker.

While the State Rep. Darren Bailey is not mandated by law to stay at home, a majority of Illinois residents are required to stay at home to help reduce the spread of COVID-19. Furthermore, there is to be a ‘permanent injunction’ on the matter within the next 30 days. A permanent injunction is ‘A court order that a person or entity take certain actions or refrain from certain activities. A permanent injunction is typically issued once a lawsuit over the underlying activity is resolved, as distinguished from a preliminary injunction, which is issued while the lawsuit is pending.”⁶ Governor Pritzker is reported to be appealing this case to state that he was acting within his authority to extend the stay-at-home order until May 30th.³

_______________________________________________________________

1. Bailey, Megan. “Illinois GOP lawmaker wins court ruling exempting him from governor’s stay-at-home order.” The Washington Post. Accessed 30 April 2020.

2. “Coronavirus in Illinois updates: Here’s what’s happening Friday.” The Chicago Tribune. Accessed 1 May 2020.

3. Bailey, Darren. “Darren Bailey Beats Gov. JB Pritzker: Judge grants Temporary Restraining Order against ‘stay at home’ order.” State of Illinois for Darren Bailey. Accessed 1 May 2020.

4. Heinzmann, David. “‘People are frightened’: Across rural Illinois, economic frustrations mix with anxiety over COVID-19.” The Chicago Tribune. Accessed 1 May 2020.

5. “Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan - IDPH. (March 1, 2020)” Illinois Department of Public Health. Accessed 1 May 2020.

6. “Permanent injunction.” Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute. Accessed May 1 2020.

Photo Credit: Brinacor

0 notes

healthyworthyofficial · 5 years ago

Text

Coronavirus vaccine could be tested on animals by next week

A potential vaccine against the killer coronavirus might be tested on animals as soon as next week during a breakthrough within the global fight against the outbreak. Hundreds of experts are set to satisfy in Geneva next week to line research and development priorities for coronavirus drugs, diagnostics and vaccines, the planet Health Organization (WHO) said today. The scientist leading the UK's research into a jab has meanwhile announced a big breakthrough as experts race against the clock to develop a vaccine. Professor Robin Shattock, head of mucosal infection and immunity at Imperial College London, has told Sky News his team might be able to test the vaccine on animals next week. If enough funding is secured, the vaccine might be tested on humans by summer, he added. "Conventional approaches usually take a minimum of two to 3 years before you even get to the clinic. And we've gone from that sequence to generating a candidate within the laboratory in 14 days. "And we'll have it in animal models by the start of next week. We've short-tracked that part. subsequent phase are going to be to maneuver that from early animal testing into the primary human studies. "And we expect with adequate funding we could do this during a period of a couple of months." Prof Shattock that if the vaccine are often successfully developed after summer it might be too late for the present outbreak if it circulates round the world. He explained that if coronavirus acts like influenza, we could see it wane over the summer months. However the vaccine might be wont to combat a second wave of the coronavirus, the professor added.

There is no proven effective therapies for coronavirus yet, the WHO says. Prof Shattock is a component of a crack team of international experts leading clinic investigations and research into the animal source of the virus which emerged at a market within the Chinese city of Wuhan last month. Global health authorities are trying to regulate the outbreak spreading round the world, as China continues travel bans and lock-downs in an attempt to contain the virus. Britain has pledged £20 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations which works on health crises like pandemics and earmarked another £20m for research and development within the UK. Scientists' race to develop a vaccine comes because the price from the coronavirus outbreak in China rises. Read the full article

0 notes

bloghealthinterventions · 4 years ago

Text

Podcast #14 Obesity and The immune system

I think in a time of pandemic, a discussion about the immune system is pretty important. As we start to head back into the fall season we will be seeing more influenza, strep pharyngitis and yes of course COVID-19. Then there are many other unidentified viral illnesses that we see every year. Gastrointestinal illnesses included. And don’t forget allergies.There are many people who know as soon as summer ends they are in for several months of misery and chronic upper respiratory infections, whether they be viral or bacterial.

How do we help? And why do some have more illnesses than others? Why would one person be an “asymptomatic carrier” and another become severely ill?

In the light of this current pandemic and the discussion of things like cytokine storm, resurgence and vulnerable patient populations this is a very pertinent topic to explore now. Viruses are nothing new. Cytokine storm is nothing new. Vulnerable populations are nothing new. How we address this and move forward from this current situation has to be new.

I am yet again going to talk about obesity and inflammation.

Man those words are everywhere in all this Healthy talk aren’t they??

I hope you are seeing the importance of those 2 topics and the connection they have to so many issues now. And why I am so passionate about helping my patients get healthier to reduce their risk of becoming severely ill or even dying from something like a virus, as well as sharing this information with you.

Even before COVID there were deaths from the flu and lost time from work, school and life due to chronic and recurrent acute infections. Contributors to the current lack of health in our population and the increased susceptibility to illness is the lack of food with nutritional value to fuel our immune system, the inflammatory load related to stress, sedentary lifestyle, obesity and poor sleep to name a few. All of the things I just mentioned are considered stressors. Stress is known to wear a person down and contribute to a poor immune system. Stress can also lead to obesity, which is a contributing factor to chronic inflammation, which Holy Cow!, is an added stressor, and keeps the cycle going with no end in sight. This leads to feeling tired and wore out, which leads to depression and often a less active lifestyle. Again a contributor to more weight gain and more stress and more inflammation!

How does this all lower our immune system?

First is let’s look at our poor nutrition. The body is amazing at adaptation and defense mechanisms to protect itself. But if it doesn’t have enough fuel to adapt quickly and fight, it takes longer to get the job done.

The fuel our body needs to boost the immune system and prevent or quickly fight off unwanted illness comes from phytonutrients.

Phytonutrients come from plants, specifically, fruits and vegetables.

These phytonutrients are high in antioxidants that fight the fight and have anti-inflammatory properties to clear the damage when it’s over. So boosting nutrition, filled with antioxidants, will allow for full support and available resources to either prevent or quickly control any invasion from a foreign intruder, like a virus, allergen or bacteria.

Now let’s look at inflammation. A chronic state of inflammation can dampen an immune response. If there is chronic inflammation, the body’s defense mechanisms are exhausted from always monitoring that smoldering ember, just in case it becomes a fire. If the inflammation is controlled, and you have gotten your tank full of phytonutrients, your defense mechanisms will be well rested and ready to fight the fight and come out with minimal effects. If an acute infection arises in a person with a poor immune system, with chronic inflammation, the outcome can be as detrimental as we have seen in this pandemic. This cytokine storm that is killing people is just like the cytokine storm we can see leading to death in patients with sepsis or an influenza they couldn’t overcome. It is the out of control surge of inflammation that the body CANNOT overcome. The immune system just can’t win the fight with such an overwhelming attack on a weak, tired, beaten immune system with no resources to defend itself.

That was an extreme look at the outcomes associated with a poor immune response, but a necessary connection to understand.

To look at another connection of an altered metabolic state, as seen in obesity, to immunity, we need to address T-cells. In conditions where glucose levels may be elevated, there is insulin resistance and altered fatty acid metabolism, leading to poor T-cell production. T-cells are responsible for activating the immune system and building immune memory by building antibodies to recognize the pathogen that may be presented and to be prepared to strike when it tries to invade the body. Because, if you know your enemy, you can prepare the troops to destroy it on sight.

Obesity associated inflammation and the resulting impaired immune system preparedness and response, can actually lead to vaccine failure via poor ability to build that adequate recognition and response. Sadly, this same impairment allows for increased risk of cancer. The immune system is supposed to recognize the altered malignant cells as danger and kill them off rather than allow them to proliferate, but cannot. Especially, if the impaired metabolic state has high levels of circulating glucose to feed and empower the malignant cells.

Cancer is the #1 fear I encounter in my practice. COVID has impacted many as a current contender for fear of a lurking enemy with a fatal outcome, but still not like the fear of cancer.

We must be diligent in our efforts to make an impact on the obesity crisis. I am not “selling you a course” for vanity weight loss. I am offering you a way to make an impact in your every day practice, with your patient population, that may save their lives through my course that teaches you how to address it without going through all of the nonsense I went through to figure it all out.

We have to do things differently. We can’t keep trying to manage each so called “individual disease state”. We have to manage the person as a whole. We have to be proactive, not reactive. We have to make them aware of the processes that we know are putting them at risk and how to stop them from speeding down their own path t destruction. Even worse, is that they are taking the next generation down that path with them. You can’t get through to everyone, but if you can even help them make 1-2 positive changes, you can impact their life and maybe the life of someone you’ve never even met that followed them in making those few changes.

0 notes

kathleenseiber · 5 years ago

Text

Cosmos Q&A: Quest for a vaccine

Researchers at the University of Queensland this week began the first human trials of their COVID-19 vaccine. You can read the latest update here.

To gain some insight into their approach to this international quest, Cosmos put a few questions to the team’s leaders – Dr Don Watterson, Professor Paul Young, Associate Professor Keith Chapman and Professor Trent Munro, pictured left-to-right below with Project Manager Christina Henderson.

What were your thoughts as you saw clear signs of the pandemic emerging?

When we first heard the reports coming out of China, the team immediately snapped into action and thought that this might be a good “stress test” case to run through our rapid response vaccine pipeline we had been developing as part of a Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) funded project platform. Of course, in early January, all we had was the viral RNA sequence that was likely a good fit for our molecular clamp technology based on work we’d done on MERS [Middle East Respiratory Syndrome].

There were definitely some discussions around how it might play out and even some insight that this could be a major pandemic threat. But it was also really hard to judge based on the patchy data around disease transmission.

Two things stand out as perhaps the key signals the rest of the world missed: 1) China immediately started building new hospitals. 2) President Xi made a public statement that this was a very serious threat for China. That should have been the wake up call for global preparedness, but clearly that took too long.

How do you start trying to find a vaccine for something we’ve never seen before?

Like most things these days, it starts with the available data. In this case it was just great to see the Chinese scientific community make the genome sequence available for the virus so quickly. That let people start to put together a lot of information about what might be needed for a vaccine.

Once we knew this was a coronavirus and the similarities and differences to other known viruses the work could really kick into high gear in terms of getting our vaccine program underway. For instance, we knew, based on previous work with other coronaviruses, that the spike protein was likely the best target of a protective immune response, so we, like many other groups, went down that path, albeit by incorporating our own technology.

What previous experience could you draw on?

The UQ team has been working working in the field of molecular virology for a long time and specifically, on the molecular clamp for more than 10 years. We have used the technology to get early stage proof-of-concept data across a range of viruses, including influenza, Ebola, NIPAH, MERS, RSV and others. This work gave us some hints on how we would need to design our vaccine candidates for SARS-CoV-2.

What – and who – has the work to date involved?

The UQ team was awarded funding from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in early 2019 under the “Platform technologies” funding scheme. This really laid the groundwork for taking the molecular clamp into clinical development. The plan was to conduct Phase 1 studies for influenza and MERS followed by a “Disease X” mock response based on the learnings from the previous programs. The goal was to see how quickly we could go from virus genome to human dose.

We had our first discussions with CEPI in very early January about using the molecular clamp platform as a rapid response to COVID-19 and they made the formal decision to fund the program in late January. We had started the work in anticipation and it was all hands on deck as we turned the entire groups focus toward SARS-CoV-2.

As part of our CEPI project we had built a broader consortium including key researchers from other organisations including CSRIO, The Doherty Institute at University of Melbourne and the Australian National University. We also had international links with the University of Hong Kong through our MERS work.

How and when did you suspect you were onto something?

We were confident from day one that we could use our platform to progress something, but we also knew there were a lot of technical hurdles to overcome. In the early weeks of our program the team had to screen through a large number of clamp-spike protein variants to find the one that had the properties we wanted in a vaccine. To see that initial result in the lab was a great early boost for the team – we showed we could produce the vaccine in the form we needed it.

We locked in on this on 14 February. From there it was all systems go in terms of producing the vaccine at larger scales and developing a deeper understanding of the molecule. We were doing this in parallel with a large number of pre-clinical studies that would support program progression.

One of the most important early readouts was when we could show that antibodies from mice that had received two doses of the vaccine exhibited a strong neutralising antibody response. That result provided the initial support to move onto formal toxicology and virus challenge studies. We are now in a Phase I clinical trial and so still early days for our program, but we are optimistic about the future development path.

What if anything surprised you about the behaviour of the virus? Any interesting twists to the discovery process?

Probably the most surprising thing is that if you took a poll amongst scientists working in this space most would probably have said that it would be an influenza virus that would be responsible for the next global pandemic. When we look back at SARS and MERS, those viruses cause a much higher mortality rate and lower transmissibility.

SARS-CoV-2 appears to have hit the sweet spot between transmissibility and severity, that is coupled with the possibility that there is significant viral shedding prior to onset of symptoms. Also we think everyone needs to recognise that we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic and that while we race to develop treatments and vaccines, public health measures are still our best chance to reduce impact and save lives. There is no reason this can’t be balanced with maintaining economic activity – we just need strong national and international leadership.

In terms of twists for our discovery process, what we have observed is just the most amazing willingness to collaborate and drive this project forward. This has really been across the board from both academia and industry. Without this level of support and collaboration we would not have been able to start our clinical trial this week. On top of that we have been blown away by the level of financial support that has come from philanthropic sources, from big business to school children – that’s been a huge boost for us all and let us move at speed.

What’re the next steps, and how will you measure progress from here?

We started our human clinical trial this week and there will be lots of activity working on the samples coming from that study. We are hopeful that in a couple of months we have some interim readouts that will let us know about the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine. That will then be the trigger point to keep moving forward. We’ve been very fortunate to have CSL on board as a development partner. They are preparing, should the initial results be positive, to move into both large-scale manufacturing and later stage clinical development. If things go to plan, we’d love to see a large number of doses available next year that have an impact on the pandemic.

This is an international challenge. How has news of your progress been received and what impact might it have?

We had support from so many sources and also words of encouragement from across the globe. We’ve had letters and emails from so many people wishing us well and hoping for success. Working so closely with CEPI has also been key as we have been involved in various global initiatives and meetings across many of the other international groups developing COVID-19 vaccines. We’ve been able to share our progress and also hear updates from the other programs.

The challenge of developing seven billion doses to immunise the world’s at risk population is immense and it will likely need several successful vaccines to be developed in parallel to enable life to return to normal. We are glad to be playing a role in the fight against this virus.

Cosmos Q&A: Quest for a vaccine published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

dinafbrownil · 5 years ago

Text

Evidence Shows Obama Team Left A Pandemic ‘Game Plan’ For Trump Administration

When discussing pandemic preparedness and COVID-19, “[c]learly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during a May 11 Team Trump Facebook Live interview with Lara Trump

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell alleged that the Obama administration did not provide the Trump administration with any information about the threat of a possible pandemic during a May 11 Team Trump Facebook Live discussion with Lara Trump.

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

“They claim pandemics only happen once every 100 years, but what if that is no longer true? We want to be ready, early, for the next one. Because clearly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this,” said McConnell.

This claim caught our attention because its definitive nature was directly at odds with the position of some former Obama administration officials, who immediately disputed it and started circulating on social media the link to such a plan.

We reached out to McConnell’s press team to ask for the basis of his statement. McConnell’s spokesperson David Popp said in an emailed response that “this is a unique crisis and we are all adapting to the public health and economic challenges.” In terms of the pandemic’s economic impact, he said there was “definitely no playbook there” and instead credited McConnell with his work on the CARES Act, a coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Please confirm your email address below:

The Pandemic Playbook

Soon after McConnell made his playbook comment, Ronald Klain, the White House Ebola response coordinator from October 2014 to February 2015, tweeted out a link to a document titled “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.”

Sources:

Brookings, “How instability and high turnover on the Trump staff hindered the response to COVID-19,” May 7, 2020

CNN, “Fact-check: McConnell claims Obama didn’t leave Trump a pandemic ‘game plan.’ Obama left a 69-page playbook,” May 12, 2020

CNN, “Ex-homeland security adviser: Our playbook was ‘ignored’,” May 12, 2020

CNN, “Ex-Obama official: We left Trump detailed pandemic playbook,” May 12, 2020

Congressional Research Service, “Presidential Transition Act: Provisions and Funding,” Oct. 5, 2016

C-SPAN, “President Trump White House Departure,” May 14, 2020

Document Cloud, “Pandemic-Playbook,” March 2020

Email exchange with Eric Schultz, senior adviser to Barack Obama, May 12, 2020

Email exchange with Lawrence Gostin, university professor at Georgetown University Law Center, May 12, 2020

Email exchange with Lisa Monaco, distinguished senior fellow at the New York University School of Law, May 12, 2020

Email statement from the Office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, May 14, 2020

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget Memo, “MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES,” April 27, 2020

Huffington Post, “Trump Administration Failed Dry-Run ‘Crimson Contagion’ Pandemic Exercise,” March 20, 2020

Kaiser Health News, “Was the Novel Coronavirus Really Sneaky In Its Spread to the U.S.? Experts Say No,” March 19, 2020

Phone interview with Martha Kumar, co-founder and director of the White House Transition Project, May 13, 2020

Phone interview with Nicole Lurie, strategic advisor to the CEO at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiatives, May 13, 2020

Phone interview with Peter Loge, associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, May 13, 2020

Politico, “Before Trump’s inauguration, a warning: ‘The worst influenza pandemic since 1918’,” March 16, 2020

Politico, “Facilitated Group Discussion Pandemic Response,” March 2020

Politico, “Trump team failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook,” March 25, 2020

S.1172, “Edward “Ted” Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvement Act of 2015,” 2015-2016

Twitter, Ronald Klain status

YouTube, “Watch Team Trump Online With Lara Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell!” May 11, 2020

The document, originally unearthed in March by Politico, is a 69-page National Security Council guidebook developed in 2016 with the goal of assisting leaders “in coordinating a complex U.S. Government response to a high-consequence emerging disease threat anywhere in the world.” It outlined questions to ask, who should be asked to get the answers and what key decisions should be made.

Nicole Lurie, another Obama administration official, confirmed to us the existence of the NSC pandemic playbook and also said similar documents were created for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“To say there was no playbook was ridiculous,” said Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS during both terms of the Obama administration.

The playbook lists types of infectious disease threats that could emerge. “Novel coronaviruses” were among pathogens flagged as having potential to cause heightened concern.

Lurie said that there were tabletop exercises, which included planning for a pandemic-like situation, during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. (The Trump administration also conducted an exercise — known as “Crimson Contagion” — in 2019.)

Other Obama-era officials offered similar stories in interviews this week with CNN:

“They were extensively briefed, to the extent that they paid attention to these things during the transition,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, who directed USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance.

“We absolutely did leave a plan. It was called a playbook,” said Lisa Monaco, former homeland security adviser to President Obama. The goal, she said, was to share the lessons learned during the Ebola and Zika outbreaks.

Meanwhile, Peter Loge, who served as a senior adviser within Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, told KHN he remembered a very clear message from the HHS secretary regarding the presidential transition.

“Our job was to set up the Trump political staff for success, and we took that mandate very seriously,” said Loge. He and his colleagues wrote memos to inform the Trump staff about priority issues. “But nobody called me and asked what I was doing in my job,” said Loge.

However, the Trump administration has maintained that the coronavirus sneaked up on the U.S., and Trump himself has even said it was a “very unforeseen thing.”

But, in a May 14 exchange with reporters on the White House lawn, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany acknowledged the existence of the Obama pandemic playbook, even holding it up to show the press. She also dismissed its usefulness.

“The Obama-Biden plan that has been referenced was insufficient. It wasn’t going to work. What our administration did under the leadership of President Trump was do an entire 2018 pandemic preparedness report,” said McEnany. Trump, who was standing nearby, agreed.

Our Ruling

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Obama administration did not leave behind a “game plan” for a pandemic.

That’s wrong.

Multiple Obama-era officials have said they left a 2016 “pandemic playbook” that detailed exact steps to take in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. The White House press secretary even held up the actual document on the White House lawn.

There has been discussion in recent days as to whether the Obama plan was dated because it dealt with lessons learned from earlier outbreaks that may not apply to the current pandemic. Still, McConnell’s statement focused only on whether any such “game plan” existed, and ample evidence suggests it did.

We rate it Pants on Fire.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/evidence-shows-obama-team-left-a-pandemic-game-plan-for-trump-administration/

0 notes

speedylightheart · 4 years ago

Text

Europe Biodefense Market. (2020-2025) | Latest COVID19 Impact Analysis

Global Biodefense market is valued at USD 5.31 Billion in 2018 and expected to reach USD 7.22 Billion by 2025 with the CAGR of 4.5 %over the forecast period.

Biodefense Companies

Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.

Emergent BioSolutions, Inc.

DynPort Vaccine Company, LLC

SIGA Technologies

PharmAthene, Inc.

Cleveland BioLabs

Ichor Medical Systems

Achaogen, Inc.

Xoma Corporation

Dynavax Technologies Corporation

Bavarian Nordic

others.

North America is dominating the Biodefense Market

Key Benefits for Global Biodefense Market Reports –

Global market report covers in depth historical and forecast analysis.

Global market report helps to identify opportunities in market place.

Global market report covers extensive analysis of emerging trends and competitive landscape.

Global Biodefense Market Segmentation –

By Type:- Anthrax, Small Pox, Botulism, Radiation, Others

By Application:- Medical hygiene, National defense

About Us:

Brandessence Market Research and Consulting Pvt. ltd.

0 notes

gordonwilliamsweb · 5 years ago