CMAAO
CORONA FACTS and MYTH BUSTER 82
Dr K K Aggarwal
President Confederation of Medical
Associations of Asia and Oceania, HCFI, Past National President IMA, Chief
editor Medtalks
With additional
inputs from Dr Monica Vasudeva
788: COVID-19
pandemic: Doctors sue French government for criminal negligence
With thousands of dead and 29,155 confirmed COVID-19 cases
in France, thousands of health-care professionals infected, and six doctors
already dead of the disease, anger against the government among workers and
medical staff is mounting. Like governments across Europe, the French
government downplayed the disease and deliberately withheld critical
information from the public.
In response, hundreds of health-care professionals are
filing a suit charging top officials with criminal negligence. A scandal erupted
after ex-Health Minister Agnès Buzyn spoke to Le Monde, blaming Prime Minister
Édouard Philippe for not calling off the March 15 first round of municipal
elections, the second round of which has since been canceled, and for
downplaying her warnings on the pandemic. It appears the interview was an
attempt by Buzyn to shift criminal responsibility off her shoulders and onto
those of Philippe and French President Emmanuel Macron.
Suit is based on Article 233, part 7 of the Criminal Code,
which stipulates: “Anyone who voluntarily abstains from taking or launching
measures that would allow, without risk for himself or third persons, for
fighting a catastrophe that could threaten physical persons is punished with
two years in jail and a 30,000 euro fine.”
“The government told
them at the end of February that the masks would arrive. At the beginning of
March, when they understood that the masks were not coming, they started
hearing from the government that masks were not really needed… In fact, this
was simply an admission of impotence and a lie. The plain truth is that the
government had stocked no supplies.”
The last time this court was invoked was over the 1980s
tainted blood scandal. Under Socialist Party (PS) President François
Mitterrand, the National Center for Blood Transfusion (CNTS) knowingly used
blood transfusions infected with the AIDS virus, wiping out France’s
hemophiliac population. Then-Prime Minister Laurent Fabius’s PS government
wanted to avoid using US companies’ equipment to test for the AIDS virus. It
delayed all screening of the blood until French firms could make such
equipment, by which point the blood supply was hopelessly contaminated.
789: Should face shields replace face masks to
ward off coronavirus?
April 29 Journal of the
American Medical Association, experts led by Dr. Eli Perencevich, of the
university's department of internal medicine, and the Iowa City VA Health Care
System
The clear plastic face shield, already in use by health care personnel.
Face
shields might replace masks as a more comfortable and more effective deterrent
to COVID-19.
Quickly and affordably produced and distribute
US CDC began advocating the use of cloth masks to help stop
COVID-19 transmission in April, laboratory testing suggests that cloth masks
provide [only] some filtration of virus-sized aerosol particles.
According to Perencevich's group, "face shields may
provide a better option."
To be most effective in stopping viral spread, a face shield
should extend to below the chin. It should also cover the ears and "there
should be no exposed gap between the forehead and the shield's headpiece,"
Shields have advantages over masks. First of all, they are
endlessly reusable, simply requiring cleaning with soap and water or common
disinfectants.
Shields are usually more comfortable to wear than masks, and
they form a barrier that keeps people from easily touching their own faces.
When speaking, people sometimes pull down a mask to make
things easier—but that isn't necessary with a face shield.
And "the use of a face shield is also a reminder to maintain
social distancing, but allows visibility of facial expressions and lip
movements for speech perception,"
According to the Iowa team, "in a simulation study,
face shields were shown to reduce immediate viral exposure by 96% when worn by
a simulated health care worker within 18 inches of a cough."
When the study was repeated at the currently recommended
physical distancing distance of 6 feet, face shields reduced inhaled virus by
92%
Face shields should only be one part of any infection
control effort, along with social distancing and hand-washing.
790: A
coronavirus mystery riddle: Why some places fare better
The coronavirus has touched almost every
country, but its impact has been uneven. Global metropolises like New York,
Paris and London have been devastated, while teeming cities like Bangkok,
Baghdad, New Delhi and Lagos have, so far, largely been spared.
The question of why the virus has
overwhelmed some places and left others relatively untouched is a puzzle that
has spawned numerous theories and speculations but no definitive answers.
There are hundreds of studies underway on
how demographics, public health and genetics could possibly explain the virus’
differing impact.
Each possible explanation seems to come with
caveats and counterevidence. If older people are highly vulnerable, for instance,
Japan, with its aging population, should be devastated. It is far from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment