#PandemicResponse

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Pass the Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390

1,047 so far! Help us get to 2,000 signers!

Of all the responses to the economic upheavals of the pandemic, price gouging has got to be one of the most egregious. This is when prices go up, or continue to stay high, not due to market pressures or other economic factors, but only because the seller, renter, or provider wants to increase their already excessive profits.

Some CEOs have even bragged to their shareholders about how much their profit-making pricing strategies exceed their inflationary increases in production costs.

To fight back against what they call “greedflation,” Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jan Schakowsky have reintroduced their Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390) and are now seeking co-sponsors for the bills.

As your constituent, I would like to urge you to co-sponsor and pass this bill. It has several important features: It will prohibit price gouging on a nationwide basis; it will take aim at companies that have taken advantage of the pandemic to jack up prices unnecessarily and keep them up; it will focus on companies whose executives brag to shareholders about increasing prices faster than inflationary costs; it will require public disclosure of companies’ costs and pricing strategies, and it will increase the FTC’s funding to enforce these conditions.

Thank you for considering co-sponsoring the Price Gouging Prevention Act.

▶ Created on March 20 by Jess Craven · 847 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PBVLCW to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[biotichealthcare]

Covid19 is no longer a new buzz in the world as of today, most of us have been affected by it; in one way or the other. We have been hearing of this term since November 2019 when the entire world was getting ready to welcome 2020 as a magical year to come and we were ending a decade of digital era with new discoveries in technology, artificial intelligence and IoT etc. No one believed that the upcoming year will turn their lives upside-down and bring the healthcare industry on top of the world. No one had it in their remote thought that their fast moving life will ever have a “full stop” with a new word called #lockdown.

[nursing123]

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS Track 28: Health literacy, Behavioural insights, Track 29: Health Insurance, Track 30: Pandemic Response Join the 15th American Healthcare, Hospital Management, Nursing, and Patient Safety Summit, scheduled for May 14-16, 2025, in San Francisco, USA. This CE/CME/CPD-accredited summit invites healthcare professionals, researchers, and innovators to present cutting-edge research and practical solutions that address the critical challenges in healthcare management and patient safety. Abstract Submission Deadline: January 31, 2025 Submit your abstract here: https://healthcare.utilitarianconferences.com/submit-abstract

[executive-orders]

World Health Organization; U.S. Withdrawal (EO 14155)

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-01957

Analysis of Executive Order 14155

Purpose and Background:

Withdrawal from WHO: The executive order aims to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This action is justified by citing the WHO's alleged mishandling of the COVID-19 response, lack of reforms, and perceived political influence from member states, particularly China.

Financial Disparity: The order highlights a significant disparity in contributions between the U.S. and China to the WHO, suggesting that the U.S. pays disproportionately more.

Key Actions:

Revocation of Previous Orders:

Revokes a previous presidential letter from January 20, 2021, which had retracted an earlier withdrawal notice from July 6, 2020.

Revokes EO 13987 which focused on global health leadership and response to pandemics.

Immediate Actions:

Stops all future funding and support to the WHO.

Recalls U.S. personnel or contractors from WHO activities.

Seeks new partners for activities previously handled by the WHO.

Policy and Structural Changes:

Establishes new mechanisms within the National Security Council for public health and biosecurity.

Directs the review and replacement of the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy.

International Relations:

Notifies the United Nations and WHO leadership of the withdrawal.

Halts U.S. participation in ongoing WHO negotiations regarding pandemics and health regulations, ensuring no binding commitments.

Implications:

Global Health Leadership: The U.S. withdrawal could lead to a significant shift in global health governance, potentially diminishing U.S. influence in international health policy and crisis response.

Domestic Impact: The order might lead to new domestic policies or mechanisms for dealing with health emergencies independently from WHO guidelines, which could either foster innovation or lead to isolation in global health responses.

International Relations: This move might strain relationships with allies who support the WHO and could impact global health cooperation efforts, especially in pandemics or other health crises.

Funding and Resource Allocation: Redirecting funds and resources previously committed to the WHO could lead to new investments in alternative health organizations or domestic health infrastructure.

Potential Challenges:

Coordination and Information Sharing: Without WHO, coordinated global responses to health crises might become more complex.

Public Perception and Health Security: There might be concerns about the U.S.'s ability to respond effectively to future pandemics without the global network provided by WHO.

Conclusion: This executive order signifies a major shift in U.S. policy towards global health governance, emphasizing national autonomy while potentially weakening international health cooperation. The long-term effects on both U.S. health security and global health will depend on how the U.S. manages its new approach to global health challenges.

Legal Evaluation

Constitutional Authority:

Foreign Affairs Powers: The President has significant authority over foreign affairs, including the power to enter into and withdraw from international agreements. This is derived from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the President the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. However, withdrawal from international organizations like the WHO might typically involve Congressional consultation or approval, especially if treaties or laws are involved.

Legislation and Treaties:

WHO Constitution: The U.S. is a signatory to the WHO Constitution. Withdrawal from such an organization generally involves formal notice according to the terms of the agreement. The WHO Constitution requires one year's notice for withdrawal, which suggests that the immediate effects of this EO would be procedural, leading to actual withdrawal a year later.

Congressional Role: The order revokes previous executive actions and policies, which might have been enacted partly through legislative or budgetary means. While the President can revoke his own executive orders, changes in policy that affect funding or established law would likely require Congressional action. For instance, pausing funding to WHO would need to align with appropriations made by Congress.

Executive Orders:

Revoking Previous Orders: The revocation of Executive Order 13987 by this order is within the President's authority. However, the implications of this revocation on existing programs, commitments, and international relations need careful legal and diplomatic consideration.

Creation of New Directives: The creation of new structures or mechanisms within the National Security Council or other government bodies needs to comply with bureaucratic and administrative law, ensuring no conflict with existing statutes or agency missions.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Separation of Powers: Courts might scrutinize this EO if it's seen as an overreach, particularly if it affects legislative appropriations or if it attempts to unilaterally alter U.S. commitments without Congressional input.

Administrative Procedure: Any reassignment of personnel or changes in policy might be subject to administrative law, potentially leading to lawsuits if perceived as arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Treaty Obligations: The U.S. withdrawal from international health agreements like the WHO's Pandemic Agreement could be legally contested if seen as violating treaty obligations without proper process.

Practical Implementation:

Notification and Diplomacy: The immediate notification to the UN and WHO as stipulated in Sec. 3 would follow the legal pathway for withdrawal, but the process and its implications would need careful diplomatic handling.

Funding and Personnel: The practical steps of pausing funding and recalling personnel would require coordination with Congress for budgetary changes and could face legal challenges if not executed in line with federal employment laws or international commitments.

Conclusion: While the President has broad authority to issue executive orders affecting foreign policy, the implementation of this order would likely face several legal hurdles. It would require careful navigation through existing laws, treaties, and the separation of powers doctrine. Congress might need to be involved for full legal effect, especially concerning financial and personnel decisions. Legal challenges could arise based on how the order impacts established legal frameworks or if seen as an overstep of executive power.

Evaluation of Implications

Immediate Effects: Withdrawal from WHO: The U.S. officially withdrawing from the World Health Organization would significantly reduce the global health governance role traditionally played by the U.S. This could lead to:

Decreased influence in global health policy: The U.S. would no longer participate in decision-making processes at WHO, potentially reducing its ability to shape global health standards, responses to pandemics, and health security measures.

Reduction in funding: WHO might face a substantial funding gap, as the U.S. is one of its largest contributors. This could impact WHO's operational capabilities globally.

Financial Reallocation: The redirection of U.S. funds from WHO could mean:

New or enhanced funding for other initiatives: The U.S. might increase support for alternative health organizations or bilateral health programs, possibly focusing on areas where U.S. interest is more directly involved or where they can exert more control.

Personnel and Expertise:

Recall of U.S. personnel: This would pull back expertise and leadership from WHO, potentially weakening the organization's effectiveness and the U.S.'s influence in international health dialogues.

Global Health Security:

New Strategy Development: The revocation of the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy means new policies or strategies need to be developed, which could either be more isolationist or focus on alternative alliances for health security.

Long-term Implications: International Relations:

Shift in alliances: The U.S. might strengthen ties with other countries or organizations outside the WHO framework, possibly leading to a new bloc or coalition focused on health that aligns more closely with U.S. geopolitical interests.

Perception of U.S. Global Leadership: This move could be seen as a retreat from global leadership in health, potentially affecting U.S. soft power and international cooperation in other areas.

Health Policy and Pandemics:

Vulnerability to Future Pandemics: Without the collaborative framework of WHO, the U.S. might face challenges in coordinating with other nations for rapid response to global health threats.

Innovation and Research: The global exchange of health data, research, and innovations might suffer, possibly slowing down advancements in health technology and disease management.

Legal and Diplomatic Effects:

Binding International Agreements: Withdrawal from ongoing negotiations like the WHO Pandemic Agreement would mean the U.S. avoids commitments that might be seen as infringing on national sovereignty, but it also means missing out on shaping these agreements to favor U.S. interests.

Domestic Impact:

Public Health Infrastructure: Funds or personnel redirected from international commitments might bolster domestic public health systems, but at the cost of global engagement.

Conclusion: The implications of this Executive Order are multifaceted, affecting not just the U.S.'s role in global health but also its standing in the international community. The shift could lead to more autonomy in health policy but might also isolate the U.S. from key global health networks and knowledge sharing, potentially impacting future health security. It would be critical for the U.S. to establish robust alternative frameworks or alliances to mitigate these risks.

Quality of Reasoning

Clarity and Specificity: The order is clear in its intent and actions, detailing specific steps like pausing funding and recalling staff. However, the document could benefit from more detailed justification or evidence for claims about financial contributions and political influences.

Legal and Administrative Considerations: The order ensures that it does not infringe on existing legal authorities or budget considerations, which suggests a careful legal review has been conducted.

Potential Impact and Consideration:

Health Implications: Withdrawal from WHO could potentially weaken international health cooperation, which might be detrimental during global health crises. The order does not detail how alternative mechanisms will fill this gap beyond vague references to "credible and transparent partners."

Diplomatic and Political: The decision might affect U.S. international relations, particularly with countries that view WHO as an essential body for global health governance. The reasoning for withdrawal seems heavily weighted towards financial and political grievances rather than a comprehensive analysis of health outcomes.

Feasibility and Execution: While the steps for withdrawal are explicitly laid out, the practicality of finding and establishing new global health partnerships in a short timeframe is not discussed.

Conclusion on Reasoning Quality: The reasoning behind the executive order is straightforward but somewhat one-sided in its critique of WHO. It lacks a thorough exploration of potential negative impacts on global health security or a detailed plan for how the U.S. will manage its responsibilities and influence in global health post-withdrawal. The order would be stronger with more balanced arguments or at least acknowledgment of the complexities involved in such a significant policy shift.

[rwnnews]

The Debate Over China's COVID-19 Data: What You Need to Know.

The Debate Over China’s COVID-19 Data: What You Need to Know. In recent news, China has adamantly defended its practices regarding the sharing of COVID-19 data with the international community. This defense came in response to increasing pressure from the World Health Organization (WHO) and various countries that are seeking more comprehensive data to understand the origins and trajectory of the…

[civicsavvy]

Navigating Public Health Responses Amidst Dual Crises: COVID-19 and Systemic Racism

The COVID-19 pandemic and the surge of protests against systemic racism in 2020 presented public health experts with a challenging dilemma. Amid these global crises, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, and public health advocates were caught between the need to curb the spread of the virus and the moral imperative to address entrenched racial injustices that contributed to the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on communities of color. This essay examines the divergent public health responses to anti-lockdown protests and anti-racism demonstrations, exploring the reasons behind this shift and the complexities involved in navigating public health policies amidst dual crises.

In the early months of the pandemic, public health officials and medical experts strongly advised against gatherings, citing the high risk of COVID-19 transmission in large groups. Anti-lockdown protests, such as those seen across the United States in April and May 2020, were largely condemned by health authorities who viewed these gatherings as potential "super-spreading events." Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease expert, tweeted on May 12, 2020, that these protests were "literally all possible set-ups for super-spreading events," emphasizing the irony of protesting during a pandemic only to create more outbreaks.

However, in late May 2020, the tragic death of George Floyd sparked a global wave of protests against systemic racism. In response to these protests, 1,288 public health professionals and community stakeholders signed an open letter urging an "anti-racist public health response" to demonstrations against racial injustice. The letter argued that protests against systemic racism—unlike anti-lockdown protests—must be supported, given that the former addressed the "disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities" and the broader issue of police violence. This call for a differentiated response was widely supported by both the media and a significant segment of the medical community, reflecting a nuanced approach that recognized the intersection of public health and social justice.

One reason for this shift in stance was the recognition of racism as a public health crisis. Researchers have long documented the correlation between racial inequality and health disparities, with Black Americans facing higher rates of underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and asthma���conditions that were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The pandemic brought these disparities into sharp relief, as Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities experienced disproportionately high rates of infection, hospitalization, and death. Thus, public health professionals argued that addressing systemic racism was not only a moral imperative but also an essential component of an effective response to the pandemic.

Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), echoed this view in a tweet, stating, "People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health." This statement marked a departure from his previous stance against public gatherings, reflecting a growing awareness among health experts of the intertwined nature of the pandemic and social inequities. Similarly, Stanford infectious disease doctor Abraar Karan, who had previously condemned anti-lockdown protests as potential super-spreader events, later emphasized that COVID-19 and systemic racism were "deeply interlinked" and could not be addressed in isolation.

The stance taken by public health experts during the anti-racism protests underscored the need for a more holistic approach to epidemic control—one that considered not only the immediate risks of virus transmission but also the long-term health implications of systemic inequities. Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, argued that "the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus." Nuzzo’s statement highlighted the belief among many health experts that failing to address the root causes of health disparities would only perpetuate cycles of vulnerability and poor health outcomes in marginalized communities.

Critics of this stance, however, argued that public health should remain neutral and focused solely on curbing the spread of COVID-19. They contended that endorsing protests, regardless of the cause, undermined the credibility of public health guidelines and created confusion about the risks associated with large gatherings. These critics argued that public health messaging should be consistent to ensure compliance and trust among the general population, fearing that a selective approach might lead to decreased adherence to other pandemic-related guidelines.

Nevertheless, supporters of the open letter argued that the dual crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism required an adaptive and context-sensitive response. They pointed to real-life examples, such as the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on Black communities, as evidence of the need for an anti-racist public health approach. In New York City, for instance, Black and Latino residents faced COVID-19 mortality rates significantly higher than their white counterparts, a disparity attributed to factors such as overcrowded housing, lower access to healthcare, and employment in high-risk essential jobs. These disparities highlighted the systemic nature of health inequities and underscored the urgency of addressing racism as a public health issue.

In conclusion, the response of public health experts to the 2020 anti-racism protests represented a shift toward a more intersectional understanding of health crises. By acknowledging the role of systemic racism in exacerbating the pandemic’s impact on marginalized communities, these experts called for a public health approach that addressed both the immediate and structural determinants of health. While this stance was met with controversy, it underscored the complexities involved in navigating public health policy amidst crises that transcend the boundaries of medicine and extend into the realms of social justice and human rights. The 2020 pandemic and protests revealed that effective public health responses must consider the broader social context and address the root causes of health disparities to achieve lasting and equitable outcomes.

The Erosion of Public Trust Amidst Conflicting Public Health Policies

The COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge to public health systems worldwide, yet it also underscored the delicate balance between public policy, political alignment, and community trust. The national discourse surrounding public health measures, particularly around the right to protest, shifted dramatically during the pandemic, with policies that varied according to the perceived motivations behind each gathering. As policies diverged, many Americans observed inconsistencies that, to some, appeared politically motivated. This inconsistency not only highlighted tensions within health and governmental institutions but also fostered skepticism that weakened trust in public health guidance at a critical time.

Across the country, cities and counties enacted new policies that illustrated the disparate treatment of protests. For example, Hillsborough County, Florida, passed a resolution declaring "racism a public health crisis," while Contra Costa County, California, permitted "social outdoor gatherings of up to 12 people" but allowed "protests of up to 100 people," effectively giving preference to protest gatherings. Meanwhile, Oregon County went as far as to exempt “people of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling” from the mask mandate, aiming to address concerns of racial profiling while creating different rules for different groups.

One of the most contentious examples came from New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the NYPD to break up large gatherings of Hasidic Jews attending funerals, while later instructing the city's contact tracers to avoid questioning COVID-19 patients about their attendance at Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This clear divergence in enforcement raised questions among the public about whether political priorities were influencing decisions meant to protect health, especially given the close proximity of both events to each other in time. For many, this inconsistency reflected a willingness to prioritize certain social movements over others, even within the scope of pandemic safety protocols.

As public trust is critical in any public health effort, the selective enforcement and application of health policies had serious consequences. Throughout history, public health efforts have relied on widespread buy-in and trust. In this case, however, as officials seemed to contradict themselves on what types of gatherings were permissible, it fueled a growing mistrust. Many Americans began to see these actions as an alignment with political affiliations rather than scientific principles, creating confusion and disillusionment. A significant portion of the public found itself questioning why certain gatherings were sanctioned while others were strictly discouraged, leading to the perception that public health messaging was swayed by political winds.

This perceived double standard created an environment where both governmental and scientific credibility eroded. The erosion of public trust in government was particularly damaging at a time when authorities needed people to adhere to guidance on social distancing, mask mandates, and eventually, vaccination protocols. Rather than a uniform and scientifically grounded public health strategy, the shift in policy messaging created a “pick-and-choose” approach that left individuals wondering whether guidance could truly be trusted. Social media amplified these perceptions, circulating images of authorities and public figures who at one moment were critical of large gatherings and at another time appeared to condone them.

Additionally, inconsistencies in policy approach extended beyond protests and were visible in broader pandemic-related health strategies. As SJF (Social Justice Framing) reasoning gained prominence, this framework became both expert advice and official policy. The approach was intended to address systemic injustices exacerbated by the pandemic; however, many argued that the selective focus on certain gatherings weakened the foundational principles of public health, which aim to treat all groups equally in health and safety policies. When public health policies seemingly changed based on the social or political stance of a gathering, it undermined the concept of equal treatment, casting doubt on the intentions behind these policies.

The impact of this mistrust extended beyond compliance with health guidelines. It affected other aspects of the pandemic response, including vaccine uptake, mask-wearing, and even adherence to lockdown protocols. The lack of a unified response fueled frustration among those who felt their actions were scrutinized more heavily depending on the nature of their assembly. As the public became increasingly skeptical, public health initiatives faced resistance from a population disillusioned by what they perceived as shifting priorities based on politics rather than science.

In conclusion, the handling of public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of public trust when policies appear inconsistent or politically motivated. Public health guidelines that seemed to adjust to accommodate social and political factors, rather than applying uniformly, left a lasting impact on the credibility of both government and health institutions. This crisis illustrated the need for consistent, transparent policies grounded in public health science rather than selective enforcement that could be seen as partisan. When public health guidance is perceived as impartial and uniform, it stands a better chance of garnering public trust and adherence, especially in times of crisis. This experience offers a powerful lesson for future public health emergencies: clarity, consistency, and equality in policy are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring effective, cooperative responses across communities.

Editor Final Thought

The comparison of Trump and Harris's approaches during the campaign reveals key differences in their strategies. Trump’s focus on tangible issues such as border security, crime, and economic concerns presented a clear, substantive vision that resonated with many voters seeking pragmatic solutions. His focus on issues over rhetoric contrasted with Harris's campaign, which, despite addressing hot-button topics like abortion, largely relied on emotional appeals, negative campaigning, and platitudes.

Trump’s ability to stay ahead on critical issues, like abortion, showed strategic depth, especially in navigating the complex political landscape with his "America First" approach. Conversely, Harris's reliance on demonizing Trump rather than focusing on clear policy alternatives did not resonate as effectively with voters.

Ultimately, the election highlighted that voters are increasingly focused on policies that directly impact their lives rather than divisive rhetoric or personality-driven campaigns. Trump's capacity to expand his coalition and offer specific, actionable plans led to his success, even if not everyone agreed with his views. The public, disillusioned with typical political rhetoric, sought practical answers that could improve their everyday lives—something Trump was able to offer, while Harris struggled to offer alternatives that were distinct from his.

[tmarshconnors]

Reflections on COVID Lockdowns etc

Back in 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 lockdowns, the world seemed to slip into a surreal state of mass compliance. Governments enacted measures that were unprecedented in scope, all in the name of public health. Many of us, however, saw it differently. We weren’t oblivious to the risks of the virus, but we questioned the extreme measures being taken—the constant fear-mongering, the lockdowns, the mandates. When we banged our drums, metaphorically and literally, to sound the alarm, few wanted to listen. Today, as the world grapples with new challenges, it feels eerily familiar.

In 2020, if you dared to question the narrative, the response was swift and unforgiving. We were labeled “conspiracy theorists”, and “dangerous extremists”. The sheer number of people who accepted the government’s line without question was staggering. When we attended protests to voice our concerns, we were stormed by police, arrested, and in some cases, locked up simply for exercising our right to free speech. Many healthcare workers, who had once been hailed as heroes, were cast aside for speaking out against policies they believed were harming, not helping.

What’s happening now feels like a continuation of that same story. The tactics may have shifted, but the playbook remains largely unchanged. Back then, it was about controlling the pandemic response; now, it's about controlling the narrative around everything from climate policy to digital currencies. The powers that be push harder when they see that people will comply without question. It feels like we're living in the book of “1984” by George Orwell.

For those of us who chose not to comply with mandates—whether it was refusing to wear a mask or opting out of the vaccine the social cost was high. We weren’t just punished by authorities; we were ostracised by our communities. Friends and family members disowned us. I had. Many heated arguments with one of my aunts about how I was placing my Grandmother in harms way by refusing to comply to having the vaccine.

   Social media platforms silenced us for daring to share alternative viewpoints. Yes I am looking at you FACEBOOK! Many of us were spat on, threatened, and assaulted for simply choosing a different path.

Even politicians and celebrities piled on, openly declaring war on those who refused to comply. The vitriol was shocking, and the fact that so many people cheered it on was even more disturbing. The narrative was clear: dissenters were not just wrong, they were dangerous, and they needed to be dealt with harshly.

Looking back, it's easy to see why we're still in this mess today. The events of 2020 set a dangerous precedent. When people accept the erosion of their freedoms in the name of safety, it opens the door for even more extreme measures in the future. Governments, corporations, and global organisations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken note. The more compliance they see, the bolder they become.

We shared information about the WEF's agenda and its vision for the future—one that includes greater control over our lives through digital IDs, surveillance, and centralised power. But instead of sparking meaningful debate, those warnings were met with bans, censorship, and more ridicule. The system wasn’t interested in dialogue; it was interested in silencing dissent.

Despite everything, there are signs of hope. More people are waking up to the reality that they’ve been led down a dangerous path. The cracks in the official narrative are becoming harder to ignore, and the chorus of voices calling for accountability is growing louder. But it’s still not enough.

We’re at a critical juncture, and the lessons of 2020 need to be remembered. The same tactics of fear, division, and control are being deployed today, just in different contexts. If we don’t stand up now, the consequences could be far-reaching.

The fight isn’t over, but it’s encouraging to see more people questioning, resisting, and refusing to be silenced. The world may not have listened back in 2020, but the drums are still beating, and this time, I hope the sound is impossible to ignore.

[nursingucgconferences]

Call For Paper Submit your paper with many more benefits at our upcoming 14th World Healthcare, Hospital Management, Nursing, and Patient Safety Conference from July 25-27, 2024 in Holiday In Dubai, UAE & Virtual! This is your chance to share your insights, expertise, and vision with a diverse audience eager to learn and engage. Submit here: https://nursing.universeconferences.com/submit-abstract/ Abstract Submission Deadline: April 30th, 2024

[oscar85world]

Unraveling the Mysteries of COVID-19 Through Data Science

In the past few years, our world has been upended by the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting millions of lives and reshaping the future of public health, economies, and how we connect as a global community. Amidst these challenges, data science has emerged as a beacon of hope, offering innovative solutions and deep insights into the virus that has changed our way of life. The Power of Genomic…

[nursing123]

CALL FOR ABSTRACT Track 30: Pandemic Response "Seize the Moment—Submit Your Abstract Today!" Join the CE/CME/CPD accredited 15th American Healthcare, Hospital Management, Nursing, and Patient Safety Summit, happening from May 14-16, 2025, in San Francisco, USA. Submit your groundbreaking research and innovative solutions addressing the intersection of climate change and global public health. Abstract Submission Deadline: January 15, 2025 Submit here: https://healthcare.utilitarianconferences.com/submit-abstract

[swadeshlive]

देश में एक बार फिर कोरोना पसार रहा अपने पाँव, बीतें 24 घंटे में मिले 752 नए मामले |Swadesh Live| Madhya Pradesh News In Hindi| Breaking News In Hindi

Visit Our Website : https://swadesh.in/

Twitter:https://twitter.com/home?lang=en

Join Our Whatsapp channle : https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaGRuH8GZNCj3IUwuE29

[jjbizconsult]

COVID-19 Treatment Hits the Market with a Premium Price Tag

COVID-19 Treatment Hits the Market with a Premium Price Tag. The COVID-19 remedies that countless Americans have received without charge from the federal government will become available in the private sector next week, complete with a substantial price tag. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has established the cost of a five-day supply of Paxlovid at $1,390, although Americans can still acquire the…