13 Burst results for "Infectious Disease Pandemic"
The Philosopher's Zone
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"We've led some really good groundwork here, I think, to talking about causes of death, which is something you've been working on recently. When someone dies, the information about the cause of death is presented in the form of a death certificate. So what does a death certificate look like? And how does it set out the cause of death? Death certificate very across the world, but there is this section in the death certificate, which is the part where you document the causes of death, which is uniform across the whole world every UN member state has exactly the same part on their death certificate. And the reason for this is it's this consistency means that we can compare mortality statistics so we can see what people are dying of here in Australia compared to other places in the world. And that's really important information for informing important kind of public health policies and research. And what's documented on the death certificate is the first thing is the immediate cause of death. So just before someone dies, what was it that caused them to die? And then underneath the immediate cause of death, doctors and often doctors in Australia who feel these out, they can list the chain of events that led up to that immediate cause, and that chain of events traces all the way back to the underlying cause of death. And this is kind of the crucial bit of information on a death certificate because it's the underlying cause of death. That is used for these mortality statistics that are really important. They inform most of the public health funding around the world. So, you know, what kinds of research is funded, what kinds of things are subsidized, what kind of public health initiatives it implemented. It's often based on what people are dying of. And so the way we think about what people die of is this underlying cause of death, which is the first cause that initiated the train of events leading to the death. And then there's also a room on the death certificate to document the any contributing causes. So these are things that were not part of that chain of events from underlying to immediate, but anything else going on in the causal background that doctors also think are relevant. Right, so it sounds very comprehensive, very thorough. And it sounds like death certification is one of those things that should just be a hard science, if you like. But it isn't, right? Or it doesn't seem to be. There's a lot of error and disagreement in death certification. So let's talk about that. How much error is there? And what do doctors commonly disagree about? Well, I look at the time the literature reports on there being error indebted certification, but when you really look into it, it's not just error but it's disagreement and some people are calling that error because they think one perspective should be prioritized over another. But if you have the same medical records given to two different doctors and you ask them to document what the underlying cause of death is, quite often they'll disagree. And these disagreement rates vary anywhere from 30% to 60% in a lot of these experiments. And if you ask doctors about what's going on when you document death certificates, a lot of them will say, well, the form doesn't really capture what's biologically going on when we see a patient diet. And one of these limitations seems to be that there's this requirement for a single underlying cause of death. So every patient, you can only have a document one single underlying cause of death, a single cause that starts that initial train of events leading to death. But of course, a lot of the time, things are more complicated than that. There's lots of different causes that it's very hard to say which was the underlying cause. And these causes can also reciprocally interact, making some things more severe. And so doctors feel like they can't adequately put down what they think happened when this person died, they're just trying to constrain things into this form. Well, given the broad acknowledgment of the problem, why is it that a single cause of death has to be nominated on the death certificate? Why can't you have a descriptive paragraph, if you like? Yeah, well, so this sort of tradeoff, I guess, between getting things that are biologically accurate and consistent. And also things that are achievable because filling out a death certificate is just one small part of a very busy schedule for a doctor. And there's also the complications and how you might compile mortality statistics. So if some patients have three courses of death recorded and some patients just have one, you don't want that first patient to count three times towards the mortality statistics. So some people have thought about waiting for different causes of death so that you know you might it might be 30% for one cause, a 50% for another 20% for another. But again, that just adds complications to what the doctors have to do. Especially when a lot of the time when people die, there's quite a lot of uncertainty. So one of the other reasons for this disagreement and so called error is that a lot of the time doctors just don't know exactly what the underlying cause was or causes were. And so they put their best guess and the biscuits from one doctor might be different compared to another doctor. They're also seems to be quite a lot of pressure in the medical system to not put unknown so that there is an option on death certificates to put unknown there are strict requirements about the things you can put down. But if you put unknown that often means there's going to be an investigation to make sure that there wasn't any sort of medical error or foul play, sometimes an autopsy will be involved. And doctors for their own reasons and for the protection of their patients and the patient's families, quite often want to avoid those complications. If they think that the person died of natural causes and there was no foul play, but they're just not sure what happens. They're likely to put something like a heart disease is a very common one. Because it is a common cause of death. And it's not something that's going to get investigated. Can you talk me through some of the history of how causes of death have been recorded? Because this is very interesting. Where does the practice begin, say in Europe? Yeah, so emergence of documenting causes of death came out during infectious disease pandemics. And it started in Milan. In the 1400s and this was right after the Black Death had wiped out about a third of Europe, so infectious disease was very important. For society at the time, as, of course, it is for us today as well. And so it was important to know how many people were dying and where they were dying to try to track the spread of this disease. So death records recorded, you know, who was dying and what of, but very often, particularly when they moved over into the UK, the early records were adjusted, they died of an infectious disease, the plague that they were interested in or of something else. They weren't at that time interested in documenting all the different kinds of causes. Then later it became recognized that actually having some of this information could be really great for a public health importance, knowing why people died, what age people died, tracking different demographic relationships between mortality. And so it was always kind of formed with this public health importance in mind, trying to figure out what was causing people's deaths. With the aim to moderate or to prevent future deaths by intervening on these causes. And that's still why we document causes of death, but of course the way we tend to die has changed a lot. So back when infectious disease was the primary cause of death. I probably did make a lot of sense to just document a single underlying cause because these infectious diseases would occur people would tend to die quite quickly after they were infected and you could trace a chain of events from the underlying cause to the immediate cause over quite a short period of time. These days, the amount of deaths by infectious disease is declined incredibly, it's still continuing to decline. This is even with the COVID-19 pandemic. And instead, most people are dying from non communicable diseases, which are often chronic conditions and those chronic conditions they can last for a very long time so you can have the underlying cause that can be years old. And in that intervening time, there's often a lot of comorbidity, there's other kinds of causes that are also going on in someone's body and they can interact with the underlying cause and the causal chain leading to death becomes quite complex. So this is the reason that perhaps the way that we document causes of death now is in serving as quite as well as when they first initiated during infectious
Generation V
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Generation V
"People can feel just lost and helpless of what do I do with this information? How do I move forward? Because that is the next step of that situation. It's like, okay, what do I do now? So how can you, if you can, speak to anybody that may be listening to this podcast and has stumbled upon this particular episode because they may have seen another one of your pieces of content. And they are in that position of what do I do next? It seems like such a big undertaking to change the way that I eat to examine what I wear to see what the level of connection that the animal agriculture industry has embedded themselves in so many different ways. How can you remove yourself from that without feeling like you're just going to continue to cause damage? Yeah. Well, I think it's important to first look at the big picture and look at the scope of the problem to educate ourselves to say, how does this affect the environment, our personal health? How does this lead to infectious diseases, pandemics? How does this lead to animal cruelty? And I think it's important to have that big picture view of the issue because it gives us the sense of empowerment to know that our everyday our everyday choices have such a huge impact. We often live in a very disempowered world. And I guess what I mean by that is we look at life's biggest issues and as individuals we feel very helpless to create change. And we march and protest against wars and social justice problems and yet it feels like often nothing changes and nothing it doesn't. But what happens when we buy meat dairy and eggs every single day is we are actively. But what happens when we buy meat and dairy? What happens when you buy meat dairy and eggs every day? Is we actively support an industry that is driven by our consumer demands. And so actually, part of being vegan is to empower ourselves to know that actually yes as individuals we can make a huge change. So I think viewing yourself as a vessel for creating a better world is really important. And then as well as being the big picture, you need to look at the smaller picture and simplify it because the problem with big picture stuff is it can then feel very overwhelming. You know, you feel almost suffocated by the enormity of the issue. So then I think just to simplify it. If we say to ourselves, look, I'm making this change. It's going to be a lifelong change, and I have to make this change for all of these big reasons. Psychologically, that's kind of terrifying, isn't it? It's super daunting. So I think that the best way to get past that is just to simplify that down and say, I'm going to have my next meal as a vegan meal. The meal after that vegan meal, today I'm going to be vegan the next day I'm going to be vegan. And just simplify it down meal by meal day by day, because it's making it a lot more palatable to yourself. When I first went vegan, I even said to myself, you know, one day I'm going to have a cheeseburger again. You're not like a McDonald's cheeseburger, you know? A non vegan one. I convinced myself that that was gonna be something I did one day because having that almost illusion of something in the future made what I was doing in the present more accessible, more palatable. And then eventually got to the point few weeks in whenever it was, where I said, I don't ever want that cheeseburger again. But I got to that point if you're just taking it very simply not reinventing the wheel here, just find out food that you already like, make simple swaps, you know, find a meal plan online, one of yours, perhaps. Find something that makes those things easier and more accessible because the simpler we can make something the more we'll be able to succeed at following that. That's why I would recommend. Yeah, I agree with you fully as somebody that helps people transition and change what they eat to prioritize their health or maybe their to align themselves with their new belief system. It can be so overwhelming to figure out what to eat next. And I feel that so many people also feel the pressure of being perfect and especially that is reflected in the vegan community. You hear and see stories of maybe somebody that announces that they're vegan. And then the next story or post that they make has some type of non vegan maybe clothing or food that they're unaware of. They're in their process of transitioning. And yet, instead of finding support from the vegan community, sometimes they can attack that person. And that can often lead to that person, maybe stepping away from even considering living that way because of the lack of support even from the community itself. So I'm also a huge fan of just progress over perfection. Some people can go fully plant based overnight. Some people have the conviction and the resources available to do that. And then other people it requires a process. And we don't need a few perfect vegans to make a change. We need a lot of imperfect beacons to make a massive change because systemically we're talking about like you mentioned we're all consumers. And if just one person decides to eliminate animal products from their diet, it's going to make a small impact. But if a lot of people even just replace one meal from the three to 5 meals that they eat per day with a vegan meal, collectively that makes a far larger impact. But not everybody can make that transition so easily. So I think it's different strokes of different folks, isn't it? And you're right that I know many people who like, you know, I just realized one day what I was doing was wrong and swapped. And I met people like myself who went vegetarian first and then went vegan. And I think the overarching, the opportunity thing is always that notion of accountability, isn't it? When accountability can feel like a scary word, but I think it just means fundamentally just reflecting on our actions and making sure that we are in alignment with how we really feel about these things. And so I guess what I mean by that is people will always get a go about things slightly differently. Some people made that change overnight some people won't. But I think whatever pursuit we're adopting based on the current situation we're in is individuals. Accountability is important because it means that we don't become complacent, means that we can avoid becoming, I suppose not have detached necessarily, but I suppose just removed from what we're thinking about, because after what people can do is they can have this moment where they see everything that's happening, whether they make this realization, they go, I'm going to change everything. And then time has this funny way of helping us almost distance ourselves from bad things. And so accountability, I think, just means reminding ourselves of why we're making this change. So if someone is making that step to vegetarianism and then veganism, they don't become complacent when they recognize that veganism is the full, I suppose, what's the word realization of the values that they're understanding within themselves? So yeah, I think we have to be totally understanding of different people's perspectives, different people's positions in life, and I think rather than shame or coal people out, that's the right word. We have to just encourage self accountability. You know? And there's a way of doing that, which is coming from a compassionate place that is coming from a place of understanding and respect. And so if someone has just made that change to veganism and they post something online wearing a wool jacket or they've got a down coat or whatever it is, yes, it's not calling them out for being a hypocrite. It's saying, hey, you may not realize but just so you know this is made from this, which comes from here. Just the power of education is that so people when they have that choice in the future can decide what choice they want to make. You mentioned several times in your story of how you were you inherited this belief or this perception about vegans and then what they look like under the stereotype and then also later on, you talked a little bit about some of the perceptions about the food that we consume and how protein is necessary. And the title of your book is, it's called vegan propaganda. And other lies the meat industry tells you. This is right here. Where do you think we learn this kind of blanket statement vegan propaganda? Because.
Generation V
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Generation V
"Beliefs onto somebody, but just giving them the opportunity to think for themselves for once because like you said many people and myself included everybody has been in the situation where we may have adopted or inherited a belief system that may or may not be ours and we've just kind of followed that way. For as long as we've known, we've never had it challenged in any sort of way or given been given an opportunity to make the decision for ourselves. So I love hearing that. And what would you say just to change gears a little bit? What would you say, what was your space for self reflection? How did you come to your stance on animal cruelty and making the decision to essentially commit your life to being an advocate for protecting animals and establishing new ways of thought around the way that we treat our fellow sentient beings that we share this planet with? Yeah. Well, unlike you, I wasn't raised in a family that taught me values around animals. I was raised in a family where we loved dogs and cats or dogs especially and we fought that people who had animals were wrong, but I was also raising a family where we would laugh at being vegetarian or people that didn't eat meat were these strange hippies fringe people. That's the impression I was given from my family. And so for me, it was just this heavily normalized action, this consumption of meat. And we would eat things like wild boar, squirrels, rabbits. We weren't necessarily the type of people that were just eat chickens and cows and the pigs because that's what everyone would eat animals that a lot of people wouldn't eat. And you know I used to make jokes about having steak that was so bloody that I could use the blood as a source. The potatoes in a really grim dark things, things that make me cringe to think about now, but back then I would say with a smile on my face. So for me, these things this consumption this perception of a farm farmed animals was very ingrained very normalized and it wasn't until I came to university that I was forced to reconsider my values. Many because I started making vegetarian Friends, I'd never had vegetarian friends before. All of a sudden, some of my closest friends were vegetarian, and I was like, okay, you know, I shouldn't be so judgmental, 'cause he's a nice people, nothing weird about them at all. And very noble in what they were doing the way they described it the way they spoke about it. I actually felt really I understand that, you know, I'm a cruelty is terrible. I never stopped her for about my own behavior there. And the one day I came across this story, I was 20 years old, I think it was made 2014. And I came across this story and it was about a truck carrying 6 and a half thousand chickens crashing on the way to a slaughterhouse near the city of Manchester, which is in northern England. And I was reading this story and I was really horrified because hundreds of the birds had died from the crash, just died from the impact. But then there were hundreds more. Some of them were running into oncoming traffic and being hit by cars. Some of them were broken bones, broken wings, suffering on the side of the road. And I remember reading this story and feeling just so terrible that these animals were suffering. But then I felt like such a hypocrite because in my fridge was a KFC because when I used to do animals, fried chicken was my favorite foods. It used to get fried chicken all the time. My local cavity was like a ten minute walk, so I'd go once twice, maybe three times some weeks. I just stock up on fried chicken. And here I was feeling sorry for chickens who are going to a slaughterhouse to be killed many of them probably for fried chicken that I would have consumed. But they're suffering and I recognize that they're suffering. And so I had to again give myself that space to go, well, what is my values when it comes to non human animals? You know, I'm against people that cause cruelty to animals. There is unnecessarily taken to animals life and raising them in a system of farming, which causes them harm and exploits them. Surely that must be the definition of cruelty that I'm against, because what could be more cruel than the things that we do to animals who we consume, nothing could be more broad than factory farms and slaughterhouses. So if I'm getting animal cruelty and that means people say kicking a dog or tormenting a dog, then surely I have to be against these things that I pay for. And so I reached a fork in the road so to speak and I said to myself, do I bury my head in the sand? Ignore my values that I'm learning and discovering. Or do I recognize this something here? Something that's making me uncomfortable, something that's making me reconsider the way that I've always lived, and I pursue that and go with it with an air of curiosity to see where it leads me. I chose the latter and went vegetarian. And then 8 months later, my partner was telling me to watch this documentary earthlings. She'd seen advertise on Instagram and she said we should watch it we should watch her. And I said, there is no way I'm ever watching that documentary. You know, that's probably undercover footage shot by Peter. You know, it's probably all fake, it's extreme. It's not truly representative of what happens in these places. I was still this kind of very nervous vegetarian who didn't want to be vegan and wanted to just kind of pretend that everything was fine the way that I was. And then I saw the documentary and it kind of changed my life because at that time I had a pet a companion animal hamster called Rupert Rupert hamster, who was the first animal I ever really had in my life who had formed a connection with. You know how much is a incredible animals? They're very small though. And so from a personality perspective, it could be hard to think of a hamster giving you that much personality. But Rupert had so much personality and I remember after the documentary finished, I went and sat with Rupert because I just felt that it was nice to be around an animal who wasn't being harmed. Because the documentaries playing brutal, if people haven't seen it. Yeah. Very graphic. So I sat with rub at the hamster and I was looking at him and I gave him some broccoli because broccoli was his favorite food. He loved broccoli so much good vegan hamster. And so I gave him some broccoli and he was labeling away with his cute paws and I was just thinking what a delight he is. And I was thinking, wow, you know, there was so much about Rupert that makes him unique. He likes broccoli. He didn't like kale very much. He hated running. He never ran in his wheel, which was unique for hamsters, because most Hampshire's love running Rupert hated running. He just wanted to sleep and eat all day, which is kind of reliable to how I want to live as well. And so I was looking at a reboot. And I was thinking, there's so much about him that makes him unique. But what about the dairy cows, what about the egg laying hands? What about all the animals who exploit in all the ways that we do? Surely they have personalities likes dislikes? Surely they're sentient and conscious like Rupert and then I realize that what we do to animals isn't an issue of meat dairy and eggs in the food is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that we have degraded the lives of animals to such an extent that what we do is them becomes acceptable. The fact that we can do these things to animals and think that's okay, just show us how little we view their existence. And so I realized that the issue is our mentality. And that's why veganism became this big part of my life because it was really challenging this paradigm of viewing animals is being so unworthy. And I realized quickly that me being a vegan myself was great, but having people around me who were continuing to be animals and who probably felt the same way that I did about animal cruelty and I'm all suffering and it would probably reach the same conclusions that I did if given the chance. By being silent, I was still being complicit, and that's what spurred me to take that next step to go, you know, I need to go beyond this. I need to start talking about these issues. I need to give other people the space to think about it in the same way that I did. I love that. Thank you so much for sharing that. I feel like so many people that I've come in contact with online and I'm sure you as well have found themselves in that place. Curiosity brews and you start exploring a little bit deeper into the rabbit hole of where your food may have been sourced from and the manner in which it was created, essentially. And that oftentime leaves people feeling many different emotions. People can feel angry that they've been tricked or lied to, people can feel guilty and shameful that they've been partaking in this system. People can feel conflicted because there's a sense of identity that's attached to what they eat in their culture. And people can feel just lost and helpless of what do I do with this information? How do I move forward? Because that is the next step of that situation. It's like, okay, what do I do now? So how can you, if you can, speak to anybody that may be listening to this podcast and has stumbled upon this particular episode because they may have seen another one of your pieces of content. And they are in that position of what do I do next? It seems like such a big undertaking to change the way that I eat to examine what I wear to see what the level of connection that the animal agriculture industry has embedded themselves in so many different ways. How can you remove yourself from that without feeling like you're just going to continue to cause damage? Yeah. Well, I think it's important to first look at the big picture and look at the scope of the problem to educate ourselves to say, how does this affect the environment, our personal health? How does this lead to infectious diseases, pandemics? How does this lead to animal cruelty? And I think it's important to have that big picture view of the issue because it gives us the sense of empowerment to know that our everyday our everyday choices have such a huge impact. We often live in a very disempowered world. And I guess what I mean by that is we look at life's biggest issues and as individuals we feel very helpless to create change. And we march and protest against wars and social justice problems and yet it feels like often nothing changes and nothing it doesn't. But what happens when we buy meat dairy and eggs every single day is we are actively. But what happens when we buy meat and dairy? What happens when you buy meat dairy and eggs every day? Is we actively support an industry that is driven by our consumer demands. And so actually, part of being vegan is to empower ourselves to know that actually yes as individuals we can make a huge change. So I think viewing yourself as a vessel for creating a better world is really important. And then as well as being the big picture, you need to look at the smaller picture and simplify it because the problem with big picture stuff is it can then feel very overwhelming. You know, you feel almost suffocated by the enormity of the issue. So then I think just to simplify it. If we say to ourselves, look, I'm making this change. It's going to be a lifelong change, and I have to make this change for all of these big reasons. Psychologically, that's kind of terrifying, isn't it? It's super daunting. So I think that the best way to get past that is just to simplify that down and say, I'm going to have my next meal as a vegan meal. The meal after that vegan meal, today I'm going to be vegan the next day I'm going to be vegan. And just simplify it down meal by meal day by day, because it's making it a lot more palatable to yourself. When I first went vegan, I even said to myself, you know, one day I'm going to have a cheeseburger again. You're not like a McDonald's cheeseburger, you know? A non vegan one. I convinced myself that that was gonna be something I did one day because having that almost illusion of something in the future made what I was doing in the present more accessible, more palatable. And then eventually got to the point few weeks in whenever it was, where I said, I don't ever want that cheeseburger again. But I got to that point if you're just taking it very simply not reinventing the wheel here, just find out food that you already like, make simple swaps, you know, find a meal plan online, one of yours, perhaps. Find something that makes those things easier and more accessible because the simpler we can make something the more we'll be able to succeed at following that. That's why I would recommend. Yeah, I agree with you fully as somebody that helps people transition and change what they eat to prioritize their health or maybe their to align themselves with their new belief system. It can be so overwhelming to figure out what to eat next. And I feel that so many people also feel the pressure of being perfect and especially that is reflected in the vegan community. You hear and see stories of maybe somebody that announces that they're vegan. And then the next story or post that they make has some type of non vegan maybe clothing or food that they're unaware of. They're in their process of transitioning. And yet, instead of finding support from the vegan community, sometimes they can attack that person. And that can often lead to that person, maybe stepping away from even considering living that way because of the lack of support even from the community itself. So I'm also a huge fan of just progress over perfection. Some people can go fully plant based overnight. Some people have the conviction and the resources available to do that. And then other people it requires a process. And we don't need a few perfect vegans to make a change. We need a lot of imperfect beacons to make a massive change because systemically we're talking about like you mentioned we're all consumers. And if just one person decides to eliminate animal products from their diet, it's going to make a small impact. But if a lot of people even just replace one meal from the three to 5 meals that they eat per day with a vegan meal, collectively that makes a far larger impact. But not everybody can make that transition so easily. So I think it's different strokes of different folks, isn't it? And you're right that I know many people who like, you know, I just realized one day what I was doing was wrong and swapped. And I met people like myself who went vegetarian first and then went vegan. And I think the overarching, the opportunity thing is always that notion of accountability, isn't it? When accountability can feel like a scary word, but I think it just means fundamentally just reflecting on our actions and making sure that we are in alignment with how we really feel about these things. And so I guess what I mean by that is people will always get a go about things slightly differently. Some people made that change overnight some people won't. But I think whatever pursuit we're adopting based on the current situation we're in is individuals. Accountability is important because it means that we don't become complacent, means that we can avoid becoming, I suppose.
Food for Thought
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Food for Thought
"Harry giles. Hillary lovely speak to you again. Oh you you. I was so excited when i looked at my door this morning. I was like yes. It's giles podcast day. I felt like we always have so much to cover in. This will be your third time. I think on food for thought and we've never had anyone back three times. It's quite the much and it's our pleasure completely. And i think we'll go straight to it and say well it's an interesting time. Let's put it that way in the uk. It's been a crazy kind of year and at the moment menus are soon going to be full of calories. Now you've got to count about calories. And i was wondering if you think that this should be becoming part of the conversation is a good thing a bad thing. You know i'm gonna give you maybe a surprisingly nuanced answer. I think clearly we are in a middle of a situation in which the vast majority of noncommunicable diseases not infectious diseases we are clearly in the middle of infectious disease pandemic but non infectious diseases that we face today are diet related. Okay this is true so clearly. There's something about our food environment and how we interact and how our relationship with food which needs fixing and part of that is more information. And i think that is probably going to be helpful. But is the calorie. The right information to have i guess is is the question i'm going to give a depends on what we using it for so my colleagues here in cambridge that this is not was not work. That was done by me. They have shown that calorie information at point of purchase. Your coffee shop for example you walk by and the muffin is four hundred calories type of thing that that that information on average makes a person eight percent less likely to buy the food and hence presumably consume consumed the food. So i think what calorie information does at point of purchase in cafes restaurants is to give people pause for thought it makes people think i do i do. I need this food. Not case there is some use bought. Is it useful as a piece of information to let you know how healthy something is if something four hundred calories does it mean as healthy is. It's healthiest something. That's five hundred calories and there is going to be no. I mean you raised some really good points there. I think it does depend on the goal of the individual. I suppose. And let's let's start by explaining. What a calorie is. I guess in simple terms for people so it can become more of an understanding and an informed conversation for everybody. Okay so a calorie food calorie. They're different types of calories as he'd calorie is a calorie of food. Calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise one lead to reward her one degrees celsius at sea level so it's a unit of of is a unit of energy and it's calculated and you might say well. How do you work that out. It's calculated by something using something called a bomb calorie ramada. And that's where it's a sealed container in which you put in a piece of desiccated food desiccated because water doesn't have any caloric content per se for human beings at any rate. And so you burn the food to crisp and around. This sealed container is a known volume of water in a water jacket and as thermometer in there and put simply you burn the food measure. How much you heat the water by. And that is the number of calories in the food and so put calories. Yeah and when you put it that way. It's a very technical thing. It doesn't really sound like something you're eating and i guess to to people listening they may have heard the number eight percent difference in your your colleagues study on the on the muffins now. Eight percent may not sound like a lot people listening. It isn't but you have to remember our a body weight small medium large. Whatever size you are that you are sitting at now is the cumulative is the cumulative result of thousands of different meals so you gain or lose weight overnight. People think they do like they have a big meal and this is all my god. I've gained five pounds. You haven't so whereas your body weight cumulative over many years which means that even a small difference. Five ten fifteen calories but over a thousand days that becomes a lot of calories when you actually begin to begin to actually add everything so eight percent over your life span actually ends up being quite a lot of calories and quite a big weight difference a different people so potentially with supposing that the government advised the lord out put to put calories on menus is hopefully going to over time. Make a difference. It's about the time span then that this Action can have a result just and they'll what is interesting about the government in fact i'll backtracked a bit so another colleague of i work at the university of cambridge. But i work. I'm a fundamental biologist. I look at molecules look at genes whereas we work above the marcy epidemiology unit. And what they do. Is they look at public health policies. They look at they look at you know population population behavior and they just published a paper calculating you know that over the past twenty or twenty five years. They have been you know. Tens nearly twenty different government initiatives with regards to obesity problem that and most of them have not been implemented and all of them have not worked. So why why have they not been implemented and when implemented why have they not worked and is this new calorie counting thing which i want to put in context has resulted from directly resulted from our our prime minister of the uk being in hospital suffering from covert and and and this was a member in the middle of two thousand twenty during the first lockdown and he blamed it on his wit. Okay oh of weight. And so hence i did more poorly With covert and while he wasn't an interventionist before he left the hospital thinking. I must do something about this. And this because this government this obesity strategy emerged months. After i forget exactly how many but not a long time after quick. It was very quick. I'm it's new. And i think we need to do something. We need to have a better idea what we're eating but is the calorie the right way to the right way to do it is to the point. Undoubtedly undoubtedly two hundred calories of chips is twice the amount of chips as one hundred calories of chips. So but the problem is two hundred. Grams of chips is also twice the amount of chips as one hundred grams of chips. Yeah grams and calories. A confused giles. A lot and you're not going to compare two hundred grams of chips to do under grams of carrots and say ooh we have the same amount of calories so saying two hundred calories of chips compared to two hundred calories of carrots is just as ridiculous so i think calories are useful for comparing the amounts of given food so no. I need to eat less chips mine..
Food for Thought
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Food for Thought
"It's an interesting time. Let's put it that way in the uk. It's been a crazy kind of year and at the moment menus are soon going to be full of calories. Now you've got to count about calories. And i was wondering if you think that this should be becoming part of the conversation is a good thing a bad thing. You know i'm gonna give you maybe a surprisingly nuanced answer. I think clearly we are in a middle of a situation in which the vast majority of noncommunicable diseases not infectious diseases we are clearly in the middle of infectious disease pandemic but non infectious diseases that we face today are diet related. Okay this is true so clearly. There's something about our food environment and how we interact and how our relationship with food which needs fixing and part of that is more information. And i think that is probably going to be helpful. But is the calorie. The right information to have i guess is is the question i'm going to give a depends on what we using it for so my colleagues here in cambridge that this is not was not work. That was done by me. They have shown that calorie information at point of purchase. Your coffee shop for example you walk by and the muffin is four hundred calories type of thing that that that information on average makes a person eight percent less likely to buy the food and hence presumably consume consumed the food. So i think what calorie information does at point of purchase in cafes restaurants is to give people pause for thought it makes people think i do i do. I need this food. Not case there is some use bought. Is it useful as a piece of information to let you know how healthy something is if something four hundred calories does it mean as healthy is. It's healthiest something. That's five hundred calories and there is going to be no.
Food for Thought
Is Calorie Information Helpful? With Dr Giles Yeo
"It's an interesting time. Let's put it that way in the uk. It's been a crazy kind of year and at the moment menus are soon going to be full of calories. Now you've got to count about calories. And i was wondering if you think that this should be becoming part of the conversation is a good thing a bad thing. You know i'm gonna give you maybe a surprisingly nuanced answer. I think clearly we are in a middle of a situation in which the vast majority of noncommunicable diseases not infectious diseases we are clearly in the middle of infectious disease pandemic but non infectious diseases that we face today are diet related. Okay this is true so clearly. There's something about our food environment and how we interact and how our relationship with food which needs fixing and part of that is more information. And i think that is probably going to be helpful. But is the calorie. The right information to have i guess is is the question i'm going to give a depends on what we using it for so my colleagues here in cambridge that this is not was not work. That was done by me. They have shown that calorie information at point of purchase. Your coffee shop for example you walk by and the muffin is four hundred calories type of thing that that that information on average makes a person eight percent less likely to buy the food and hence presumably consume consumed the food. So i think what calorie information does at point of purchase in cafes restaurants is to give people pause for thought it makes people think i do i do. I need this food. Not case there is some use bought. Is it useful as a piece of information to let you know how healthy something is if something four hundred calories does it mean as healthy is. It's healthiest something. That's five hundred calories and there is going to be no.
KTRH
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on KTRH
"5 48 her time here on Houston's Morning news. I'm immunity. Immunity is something that has not been talked about a lot uncovered 19 of the delta. Very arrogant or anything having to do with it were to be hearing from the For the president. Later today, Biden will be, um Telling us about some new measures coming for unvaccinated Americans. It's the only thing that matters. Are you vaccinated or not there, there will be no consideration for natural immunity. There'll be no consideration for The last time you had covid 19 and whether or not you even need to get the vaccine. At any rate. Dr Human nor Kassem on Fox yesterday, talking about the messaging issues coming out of this administration, I think one of the biggest problems that the President Biden administration right now have is this this issue of mistrust? There's a substantial fraction of the population. The United States that is not trusting the CDC and the FDA is messaging. I frankly don't blame them. I mean, the reality is that the f D. N c. D C have dramatically fallen away from science. The science in the middle of an infectious disease pandemic has to do with immunity. Instead, we're sort of really focused on this idea of vaccination. They're literally millions of Americans were already naturally immune. And these people are actually equivalently, if not, if not better, immune than some of the many fully vaccinated people. So the idea that that subset of the population is being cut out is selling a lot of mistrust and add to that the idea of mandating vaccination these folks, I think it's a dramatic mistake, so really The biggest blunder. The blood abandon ministrations. Actually making right now is the fact they've lost focus on immunity. So why is it that FDA comes out and discourages Americans and their doctors from looking to see if their immune Yeah, Why is that's a great question because they watch any of the vaccine. Why is that? Um, by the way, as long as we're talking about vaccines, uh, the European Medicines agency has added a new list of side effects for for Jansen, AstraZeneca covid 19 shots. Those are not predominant shots for United States, certainly, but it makes you wonder. Are we doing everything we can to update the Pfizer vaccine? Moderna? The ones that we are getting yours is the potential side effects. They have found that for Johnson and Johnson single dose shot New side effects listed are swollen lymph nodes unusual or decrease feeling in the skin tonight, US. You don't want that. Diarrhea and vomiting..
Physical Activity Researcher
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Physical Activity Researcher
"Physically active my mic professional philosophy. Yeah i'm i'm very mission driven If it's not consistent with helping people live healthier longer more active lives. i don't work on it. I lead with communication and collaboration. Just as i'm trying to knock down silos in those three sectors i partner and collaborate with like-minded or in individuals and i mentioned this importance of trust that i found in my research in. I work not only in my research on building bridges and building trust. But i also do that with my clients and my collaborators and really the importance of trust being a trusted source of information referring out to trusted sources join to stop the willed wind pandemic of inactivity on you a medical doctor physical therapist personal trainer. All someone else helping individuals in making a change towards a healthier better life. Imagine a behavior change tool designed for professionals like you to help your clients achieve better results and at the same time provide you with more income. Symbian is that tool. It offers an evidence based way for health and wellness professionals to extend their services into coaching. The only thing your client needs to do is put a tiny vian device into their pocket for a week. No buttons no apps. No bluetooth connections. Just a foolproof way to get scientifically accurate data easily. The device collects objective physical activity data from your client. Furthermore it forms easy to understand visual feedback and lifestyle suggestions towards healthier choices that you can present and discuss with your client. An individual approach encourages and motivates clients to change their lifestyle patterns and gives you an opportunity to strengthen your experts status and distinguished from competition. Fibia and helps you to educate and coach your clients through this change towards a more active and healthy life. Strengthen your expert status distinguish yourself from the competition order fibia now at fibia dot com. That's f. i b. o. N. dot com. so i. yeah. I guess you already. Maybe said that that trust is kind of your cornerstone. Have what do you think like are the key factors in successful health coat consulting like i are there any other factors that we want to initiate the behavior change in an individual. You have probably studied more like groups of people but you. What are your ideas on that. Yeah so i started out as someone. In the health and fitness industry working with individuals working with small groups or knee be the largest group with was a group exercise class to working with them. Honest a small scale level to to initiate behavior change and now i'm really working on helping behavior change at a large scale system at policy level Working to bridge healthcare health and fitness in communities to bring about that our health outcomes walnut act in community based settings And so one thing. I should mention so i work with larger organizations now and primarily on on chronic disease but over the past year i have been counseling and advising my local public health departments and mayor's office on covid nineteen side airy involved in cova nineteen pandemic response. And so with my background in chronic disease. I've been working on infectious disease. But it's still very much rooted in behavior change. We were working to understand the research around. Covid nineteen in us that research to inform policies that impacted behavior change in our community around mask mandates around restrictions on businesses to reduce and keep people physically distance a vision. Now remain the same which was really to work to keep communities healthy and in this case safe from infectious disease so that experience has really informed by vision of moving forward. Because i think that we have a heightened awareness of help now as as world's we've been thinking about health over the past year it's been very top of mind and very much focused on infectious disease but this infectious disease pandemic was fueled by chronic disease epidemic. Definitely we saw the extent to which people are physically inactive people. Living with obesity had much higher risk. For severe health outcomes severe covid nineteen health outcomes and so moving forward how can we address physical inactivity as a modifiable risk factor or infectious disease. Yeah and that can be beneficial to us in the future because well hopefully not. But it's maybe not the last infectious disease that we're facing like worldwide so in the projects that you have been involved in Have you measured physical activity in in any way. Or how do you do you ask people or how'd you get the information about the physical activity levels or inactivity levels. That people have. Yeah so. If i'm to carry my research.
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"There's going to be partisan diligent land right around a trillion or a little bit more than a trillion and so on one level the republican the last republican offer. That's really only about two hundred fifty billion dollars in new money. You could say that looks like an insult or that. It looks like a ridiculous response. It's nowhere in the ballpark. It's offering one hundred thousand dollars for houses listed at seven hundred thousand dollars. But i'm not sure it's actually like that. I as i look at you know i try to think about. What could you do in a reconciliation. Bill that you'd lineup all fifty democratic votes for how big that bill be. What could it really encompass. I think that might be so far off. From biden's opening bid that ends up being worth doing a deal with republicans that looks drastically different from what he proposed originally and of course the the good thing about being an eight year infrastructure package is. You can always come back and do more in the future if it's appropriate in the future to spend more money. The negotiations look at first glance like they should be sort of dead because the sides are so far apart but i. I think that there might be more reason for biden to take a much smaller loaf than you'd expect these negotiations. But i think that's gonna be a rude awakening for a lot of liberals if they end up doing an infrastructure package share. That's really only three or four hundred billion dollars of new money and it's all in very traditional infrastructure a areas such as roads and bridges. And then maybe some power grid stuff. I'm i think that I think that's likely to be disappointing. To liberals who saw the last round of relief get done and biden get substantially everything that he had asked for in the beginning except the minimum wage increase. I think that you can expect every future negotiation is going to end up looking like that one. I'll just add that. The republicans advantage here is that if you pass nothing you get nothing. So biden. Wants something cutting a deal somehow. Getting to fifty votes the negotiating advantages in the hands of the guys who say well if you want something. We're giving you something. Smaller is better than nothing. I'll be back with tim. Carney of the washington examiner and liz brunner of the atlantic talk about the return of cruises. You're listening to left right and center. You're hearing from our left right and center and we want to hear from. Ut tweet us at eller kcrw and download the free kcrw app to listen to left right and center on demand back again with left right and center. I'm josh barrow on the right. Is tim. carney. Senior political columnist at the washington examiner on the left is elizabeth brunette staff writer at the atlantic this weekend. The first big ship caribbean cruise since the cova driven cruising shutdown setting sale the celebrity millennium can hold over two thousand passengers. And it starts. Its first post co voyage this saturday but not from the united states. It's going to sail from saint martin us-based cruising is supposed to begin later this month. But there's a political snag florida's by far the largest us cruise embarkation point and cdc says. The cruise lines must ensure that at least ninety five percent of passengers and ninety five percent of crew vaccinated in order to sail from the us but florida governor rhonda. Santa's signed a state. Law that prohibits private companies from requiring proof of vaccination from their customers to santa suing the. Cdc and he's warning cruise lines. They'll be fine if they follow the cdc rules and that has florida's cruise industry in limbo. The ceo of norwegian cruise lines even said they can just sell from caribbean ports. If florida proved to be a problem. Tim what to send us is doing here. Seems like part of a major shift in how conservatives think about freedom. it's not just about freedom from the government he's saying private companies may not set rules that impact individuals in ways. That i don't like you can see it. In the fight over social media moderation which we talked about on the show last week and you can see it here with this rule of no vaccine passports. Which isn't just about when the federal government's trying to require the vaccine passports. It's also a prohibition on purely private enterprise decisions require proof of vaccination. So what's the deal with this concept of liberty. When should the government interfering to stop private entities from imposing requirements on private person. There has been a real shift. And i i've said on this show before that republicans conservatives have have changed the sort of feel like lost the debate for years we just said look a private business should get to do what it wants. And then you know the if you were talking about not catering a gay wedding if you talking about whatever and then immediately the argument would go back to black people being denied the counter and every time you said well if a private business wants to set a different set of rules it should be able to. That didn't catch on with the elite media and frankly most of the public wasn't totally on board. You see today with masks. The one of the biggest arguments. I hear about masking now. Is it's too unclear and inconsistent. I don't know. Why am i allowed to not wear a mask and giant but i have to wear a mask and safeway or whatever people kind of want consistent rules and so the idea. The argument let private businesses. Do what they want. And if you don't like it you can go to another one a lot of conservatives feel well we win on that so we're going to stop playing by that rule if the other side isn't going to play by that rule so that's how i see rhonda scientists action. The left has always said if we we know what's right and we're gonna make private businesses play by those rules and the right used to say. Well what i would say josh is. I don't think these cruise lines should have a vaccine mandate but it's up to them that seen as sort of of washing out because we know the other side wouldn't play by those rules anymore. There their relevant liberty interest. Here that that you see should should the government be making rules about when private entities can require proof of vaccination. Yeah of course. I mean take particular side. I'm a leftist. There's no left party in the united states. Look the idea of corentin itself was developed around boats which were just floating disease bombs because they put creatures human and animal in close proximity with no escape. They have always been vectors of virulent plague. Horrible horrible institutes. I don't know what would possess anyone to go on a cruise. But anyway if you're going to do that The institute of quarantine arose from i believe venetian authorities during the black death Forcing boats to wait in dock for forty days to see if people on them were going to die and huge numbers and it could have been a completely different pestilence than the black death it could have well been cholera Many many types of plague wash ashore on these horrible vessels all over the world historically And the current a virus is just yet another human history that we you know risk exporting all over the world as we try to stamp it out so i think it makes perfect sense from a public health point of view to say if we're all going to crowd onto boats and go to other countries which may have this virus under control or at a manageable level. Let's make sure that. We're not exporting. A bio weapon and we can do that by making sure that people who get aboard are vaccinated. This is a public health issue. Public health only works. If everybody has to participate it does not work if individuals op de not how public health works. But but so. I guess you make what i think is a is a strong argument. That cruises are are an environment where it is especially sensible to impose vaccine requirements. Because it's so easy to spread diseases in close quarters on a cruise ship. I'd also note. It's it's an environment where it's relatively easy to enforce a vaccine requirement. The same people are on the cruise for week. They already have to provide all sorts of other documents including a literal passport in order to get on the cruise and so the it's administrable to that requirement. Are there other places because the santa's has been trying to do this all over the economy. Are there other places where you're sympathetic at all to his his saying. Basically you know this other place where you might go. The contact is so incidental or it's so important that children be able to access at before they can be vaccinated of that sort of thing. Is he right to be to be trying to impose restrictions in in at least certain parts of the economy on the the the ability to say. Show me your vaccine card. Yeah i mean. If i can't find you like it here just running around in a field or something then fine but you know if you're going to school we already asked that you be vaccinated for instance now. Children are are a different story in this case right because they seem to be relatively low risk of vector. But if your teachers and you're going back to teach at a school you should be vaccinated if you're going into a movie theater again. Any place that human beings are gonna pack together like sardines probably need to be vaccinated. That makes sense to me And you know someone else. Some other risk actuary Can measure out the harms versus the benefits of particular venues. But i think that math can probably be the. The math has to include the fact that corona virus right now in the united states is not an epidemic really. I mean the the case numbers are falling. They're falling dramatically. We have a vast majority of adults have gotten a shot. In lots of parts of the country you're up to seventy percent are fully vaccinated or or have Have at least one shot and that among children it has not proved to be very deadly. Very dangerous thing schools. Were very safe this year. And so it's different than measles. I wouldn't send my kids who a school that allowed large numbers to be unvaccinated against The measles but and i'm glad the teachers at my kid's schools got vaccinated against corona virus of for their protection. That children are not particularly at risk from this that the virus is largely disappearing will flare up again in the fall is another question but also the other thing is that the coronavirus vaccines were approved on an emergency basis. There was an emergency that emergency has passed. We haven't gone full. Fda approval to say we're gonna have an expedited process for approving. This vaccine was great but there should be a time between when we say you can get this vaccine and you have to get this vaccine. That's that's where we are now. I'm not saying it would never be appropriate to require these for all sorts of settings but right now it seems with very low prevalence and with the drugs. Still being new. It seems that humility would have a say. We want everybody to get it but we're not going to make people get it but that is what i'm saying and it seems like my my sense. Is that the the crisis The pressure has come off of the pandemic because the vaccines have been skiing for large part and so it seems like you know we keep our foot on the gas moderately. I'm not an alarmist about this. I mean i got corona virus. My whole family did. And that's because we you know largely weren't shut ins during the pandemic You have to take some reasonable risks and we did and we got it and that was unfortunate and we quarantined and so forth and now we've been vaccinated as well but You know. I think trying to limit exposure to risk at the tail end of this thing while we manage it on. Its way out. You know within reason. I thank you know i i understand. Why the cdc's aiming at the movie theaters have almost no spread. I mean i think. I agree on the general premise again. We go case by case. You could probably persuade me on. Cruise ships certainly on hospitals. But certainly not a grocery stores and i would say probably not movie theaters again. Because there's just not great evidence of spread in those where the spread happened was big family sunday dinner. And so there's just not that many public settings where i think it would make That much sense to require it precisely because this isn't the measles it's not going to kill off a ton of kids. It's it's something that's sort of under control right now. What about places of employment. Because i think that's the other big area where we are having an are going to be having fights about whether vaccines can be required I in the long run. I think it's impractical to have to to try to scan people as they enter retail stores and movie theaters. That's a huge burden on the employees of these places and on those businesses they don't want to be in that business but workers go to the same place every day. It's again like on a cruise ship. It's relatively administrable to say you have to prove to me that you have been vaccinated in order to work here and we're seeing lawsuits at hospitals and other medical places of work where workers are saying. We don't want to be subject to a vaccine requirement to work here and we've had at least one of these outbreaks in a in a in a nursing home where you had an unvaccinated employees Who who got corona virus and ultimately we ended up in large number of patients some of them vaccinated and because of course the vaccines. They work very well but they don't work perfectly so it seems like one of the places where the strongest argument for being able to say you must be vaccinated in order. Show up here as a hospital or a nursing home but we're seeing resistance and lawsuits even over that and that feels to me like the one of the the number one places where we we should be recording it because Tim you're you're right for kids. Kovic really is basically just like the flu which is not to say that it's nothing but risk to children is relatively low. I'm concerned about the risk to too ill frail and elderly people even when they've been vaccinated in these in these concentrates settings and that's where i really think we do need to be requiring Yes we have to ask who is a third party. You're protecting if you're imposing something on somebody to tell somebody you have to do. This usually not always. I mean we require a motorcycle but typically were saying. There's some third party that we're protecting. You're not just taking the risk on yourself by going unvaccinated. And i agree especially if you're talking about the elderly among the breakthrough cases of vaccinated people catching corona virus. Almost without fail are minor cases. There's approximately zero deaths in the united sates vaccinated people now where they're happening is with the elderly. So if you're going to my uncle's in a nursing home if you're going to be serving him to require you to be vaccinated. I think is legitimate if you're going to show up at The the new york times office or the washington. Examiner or kcrw with a vaccine. You'd have to make a specific argument for how that is really endangering somebody else and to me. The vaccines are not one. Hundred percent effective is not in itself adequate argument unless you can say. Here's immuno-compromised colleague. Or here's how we're all crowded together in a tight booth for hours at a time all singing or shouting or whatever you have to make a specific argument that there's a third party you're endangering by showing up to work unvaccinated liz. I thought you said interesting. Combination of things. Because you talked about you know. Public health is something that we all have to together when you have a communicable disease. The policies don't work if you don't get you know if if you don't get widespread enforcement and get everybody to participate but you also you talked about the the very real personal sphere of of risk taking and choices that people make even in the context of an infectious disease pandemic. The government doesn't regulate every individual aspect of people's behaviors. People are going to make different choices about what they feel about risks and that's okay within a certain bound even though there are externalities and even though cova did not create an absolute moral requirement to take every possible precaution to reduce your risk of getting covert zero. That would have been impractical. So i guess how do you balance those things. Where do you determine where that sphere of personal choice ends. Even when those choices have some effect on other people. How do you decide where the line is where that effect is too large and the government needs to come in and say no. You're not allowed to make that choice. Yeah i mean. It's it's very complicated. The the list of moral decisions that are simply black and white rules-based moral decisions that are independent of context. Those are very short. That's very shortlist of moral decisions. That are completely contextual and are going to depend quite a bit on the people involved their specific situations And whatever is going on in the world in the world at the moment. That's a very long list of moral decision so In the case of corona virus there were a lot of things that made it a very unique situation. It wasn't ebola. It didn't have an extremely highly thallady rate across the board Where a young family. I'm thirty my husband's thirty two. We have a two year old and a five year old So we weren't high risk group to begin with we didn't have any exposure to elderly family members So in our immediate sphere. We thought about that not really exposed to people who are very vulnerable to this disease at the same time. You don't know who the people around you are being exposed to on a daily basis so we didn't want to pick it up at the same time there were certain things we weren't very willing to sacrifice In order to avoid picking up so for instance you could pay for a grocery delivery service like postmates or instacart. But that's just paying someone else a poor person to be exposed on your behalf We would rather be exposed. Been ask that person to be exposed considering that our risk was relatively low and we don't know that person's risk so it's complicated. It's difficult at something. You just sort of sit down and game out and in my case pray about and ask for guidance and reconsider every day But in the case of where the government comes in the government is looking at it from the view of know ten thousand feet from three hundred million people and managing it on the macro level and that has always been the government's role In terms of public health. From the government's point of view maximal vaccine uptake and maximal management of the pandemic until it is totally negligible in the population Are going to be the goals. And i understand. That is a problem for commerce. But it seems like we are getting to the point where those two lines are about to cross the commerce. Getting back on its feet. Pandemic is coming to an end. It's just a matter of not getting out over skis. Before those two things intersect before we break. I i want to switch gears and talk about one other topic. Which is michael. Flynn at a of cuban on type conference last weekend in dallas Someone in the audience has to basically. Will you know there was this military coup in myanmar. Why can't why can't we do that here. And flynn was like well that that should happen here. and then we've had reporting including maggie haberman and from charles cook at national review. Saying that the former president seems to actually believe that he's going to be reinstated into office by august. This is what the mypillow guy. Mike lindell has been saying also says two republican senators who lost in the last election. They're going to get seats back after these. They examined ballots in in phoenix and find the bamboo threads and the watermarks. And all the things that prove how the stole the election was stolen from donald trump. And all that stuff. That's actually that's actually going to work. He's actually going to be president again. Which is nuts again. It's as cook emphasize that seems the president's not saying this to troll people he's not saying to raise money saying it in private to people in a way that suggests he actually believes it and i i don't like to do segments where we just sit around and say god isn't that thing trump said not because i don't think that's very productive but when i look at this tim you know at some point. Republicans need to turn around and start running election campaign for two thousand twenty two. This presumably in large part about joe biden and joe biden's agenda and republicans should run the government. And that sort of thing. It seems like the president who was about to go back out onto the so-called campaign trail and speeches again the former president. he seems intent on keeping the republicans trapped in the psycho drama of his whatever. The effects are on the republic. It doesn't seem very useful for turning out republican voters and electing republican officials in elections in the future. Yeah it seems that nominating and rallying behind a narcissists without good ability to grasp reality might have been a mistake for the republican party. And it's a mistake that they're continuing to pay the price for donald. Trump is is what we raise our children not to be he. and that a lot of republicans tried to convince themselves that his total lack of character and sort of mental acuity with something that could be gotten over if he had the right advisers and he gave us a right judges and passer i tax cuts and he did give us the right judges and pass pretty good tax cuts but it still is a huge cost and maybe in the long run. Not worth it to put this man where he is because what he's done is. He has fostered so much of a loyalty from a significant portion of the republican base. Which is a minority of of the electorate. But it's important enough that so many other republicans feel that they have to be one hundred percent loyal to this man and not what he believed in but to the man and the man was a very worst part of the four years of the trump administration. And so i mean. It's a gift that will keep on giving to the democrats. But i don't think democrats should be happy about it because it's legitimately bad for our country to have The conspiracy theories floating around and the cult of personality for one of the worst personalities out of the three hundred and thirty million personalities in america list. Does this worry. You liked him describes. What an idiot cycle i mean. It's kind of amusing It's a little bit worrisome. I hope that no violence. No more violence comes out of it. It's also just really funny. The pillow for really adds to humor to it. My pillow guys running the country. Well not yet. We still have joe running the country. i think. I think we can leave that. There i've been talking with tim. Carney washington examiner and liz brunette of the atlantic. We will be back with patrick. Sharkey of princeton university talk about the rise.
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"Endangering by showing up to work unvaccinated liz. I thought you said an interesting combination of things because you talked about you know. Public health is something that we all have to do together when you have a communicable disease. The policies don't work if you don't get you know if if you don't get widespread enforcement and get everybody to participate but you also you talked about the the very real personal sphere of of risk-taking and choices that people make even in the context of an infectious disease pandemic. The government doesn't regulate every individual aspect of people's behaviors. People are going to make different choices about what they feel about risks and that's okay within a certain bound even though there are extra analyses and even though cova did not create an absolute moral requirement to take every possible precaution to reduce your risk of getting covert zero that would have been impractical. So i guess how do you balance those things. Where do you determine where that sphere of personal choice ends. Even when those choices have some effect on other people. How do you decide where the line is where that affect is too large and the government needs to come in and say no. You're not allowed to make that choice. Yeah i mean. It's very complicated. The the list of moral decisions that are simply black and white rules-based moral decisions that are independent of context. Those are very short. that's very shortlist. The number of moral decisions that are completely contextual and are going to depend quite a bit on the people involved their specific situations And and whatever is going on at the world in the world at the moment. That's a very long list of moral decision so In the case of corona virus there were a lot of things that made it a very unique situation. It wasn't ebola. It didn't have an extremely highly thallady rate across the board Where a young family. I'm thirty my husband's thirty two. We have a two year old and a five year old So we weren't risk group to begin with we didn't have any exposure to elderly family members So in our immediate sphere. We thought about that not really exposed to people who are very vulnerable to this disease at the same time. You don't know who the people around you are being exposed to on a daily basis so we didn't want to pick it up at the same time. There were certain things. We weren't very willing to sacrifice in order to avoid picking it up. So for instance you could pay for a grocery delivery service like postmates or instacart but that's just paying someone else poor person to be exposed on your we would rather be exposed than ask that person to be exposed considering that our risk was relatively low and we don't know that person's risk so it's just complicated. It's difficult at something new. Just sort of sit down and game out and in my case pray about and ask for guidance in and reconsider every day But in the case of where the government comes in the government is looking at it from the view of you know ten thousand feet from three hundred million people and managing it on the macro level and that has always been the government's role In terms of public health. From the government's point of view maximal vaccine uptake and maximal management of the pandemic until it is totally negligible in the population are going to be the goals and i understand. That is a problem for commerce. But it seems like we are getting to the point where those two lines are about to cross. The commerce is getting back on its feet. The pandemic is coming to an end. It's just a matter of Not getting out over skis before those. Two things do intersect before we break. I want to switch gears and talk about one other topic. Which is michael. Flynn at a a sort of q. On type conference last weekend in dallas Someone in the audience asked him basically. Well you know there was this military coup in myanmar. Why can't why can't we do that here. And flynn was like well that that should happen here. and then we've had reporting including from maggie haberman from charles cook at national review. Saying that the former president seems to actually believe that he's going to be reinstated into office by august. This is what the mypillow guy. Mike lindell has been saying also says two republican senators who lost in the last election. They're going to get their seats back after these you know. They examined the ballots in in phoenix and find the bamboo threads and the watermarks. And all the things to prove how the stole the election was stolen from donald trump. At all that stuff that it's actually there's actually a work. He's actually going to be president again. Which is nuts and again. It's as cook emphasize that it seems the president's not saying this to troll people he's not saying it to raise money saying in private people in a way that suggests he actually believes it and i don't like to do segments where we just sit around and say god isn't that thing trump said nuts. Because i don't think that's very productive. But when i look at this tim at some point republicans to turn around and start running an election campaign for twenty. Twenty two presumably enlarge part about joe biden. Biden's agenda and why republican should run the government. And that sort of thing. It seems like the president who is about to go back out onto the so-called campaign trail and be giving speeches again the former president. He seems intent on keeping the republicans trapped in this psycho drama of his whatever. The effects are on the republic. It doesn't seem very useful for turning out republican voters and electing republican officials elections in the future i mean it seems that nominating and rallying behind a narcissists without good ability to grasp reality might have been a mistake for the republican party. And it's a mistake that they're continuing to pay the price for. I mean donald trump is is what we our children not to be he And that is a lot of republicans tried to convince themselves at his total lack of Character and sort of mental acuity with something that could be gotten over if he had the right advisers and he gave us a right judges and pass right tax cuts any did give us the right judges and pass pretty good tax cuts but it still is a huge cost and maybe in the long run not worth it to put this man where he is because what he's done is. He has fostered so much of a loyalty from a significant portion of the republican base. Which is a minority of the electorate. But it's important enough that so many other republicans feel that they have to be one hundred percent loyal to this man and not what he believed in but to the man and the man was the very worst part of the four years of the trump administration. And so i mean it's a gift that will keep on giving the democrats. But i don't think democrats should be happy about it because it's legitimately bad for our country to have The conspiracy theories floating around and the cult of personality for one of the worst personalities out of the three hundred and thirty million personalities in america. Liz does this worry you liked him. Describes what an idiot psycho i mean. It's kind of amusing. It's a little bit worrisome. I hope that no violence. No more violence comes out of it. Also just really funny. The pillow part really adds to humor to my pillow. Guys running the country. Well not yet. We still have. Joe biden running the country. I think. I think we can leave that there. I've been talking with tim carney. The washington examiner. Liz brunner of the atlantic. We will be back with patrick sharkey of princeton university to talk about the rise in.
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"By showing up to work unvaccinated liz. I thought you said an interesting combination of things because you talked about the public. Health is something that we all have to do together when you have a communicable disease. The policies don't work if you don't get you know if you don't get widespread enforcement and everybody to participate but you also talked about the very real personal sphere of of risk taking and choices that people make even in the context of an infectious disease pandemic. The government doesn't regulate every individual aspect of people's behaviors. People are going to make different choices about what they feel about risk and that's okay within a certain bound even though there are extra analyses and even though cova did not create an absolute moral requirement to take every precaution to reduce your risk of getting covert two zero that would have been impractical. So i guess how do you balance those things. Where do you determine where that sphere of personal choice ends. Even when those choices have some effect on other people. How do you decide where the line is where that affect is too large and the government needs to come in and say no. You're not allowed to make that choice. Yeah i mean. It's it's very complicated. The the list of moral decisions that are simply black and white rules-based moral decisions that are independent of context. Those are very short. That's a very short list. The number moral decisions that are completely contextual and are going to depend quite a bit on the people involved their specific situations And and whatever is going on at the world in the world at the moment. That's a very long list of moral decision so In the case of corona virus there were a lot of things that made it a very unique situation. It wasn't ebola. It didn't have an extremely highly thallady rate across the board Where a young family. I'm thirty my husband's thirty two. We have a two year old and a five year old So we weren't high risk group to begin with we didn't have any exposure to elderly family members So in our immediate sphere. We thought about that not really exposed to people who are very vulnerable to this disease at the same time. You don't know who the people around you are being exposed to on a daily basis so we didn't want to pick it up at the same time. There were certain things. We weren't very willing to sacrifice in order to avoid picking it up. So for instance you could pay for a grocery delivery service like postmates or instacart but that's just paying someone else poor person to be exposed on your behalf. We would rather be exposed. Been ask that person to be exposed considering that our risk was relatively low and we don't know that person's risk so it's complicated. It's difficult at something. You just sort of sit down and game out. And in my case pray about nasc for guidance in reconsider every day But in the case of where the government comes in the government is looking at it of from the view of ten thousand feet from three hundred million people and managing it on the macro level and that has always been the government's role In terms of public health. From the government's point of view maximal vaccine uptake and maximal management of the pandemic until it is totally negligible in the population are going to be the goals and i understand. That is a problem for commerce but it seems like we are getting to the point where those two lines are about to cross. Commerce is getting back on its feet. Pandemic is coming to an end. It's just a matter of not getting out over skis. Before those two things intersect before we break. I want to switch gears and talk about one other topic which is Michael flynn at a sort of cuban on type conference last weekend in in dallas Someone in the audience asked him basically. Well you know there was this military coup in myanmar. Why can't why can't we do that here. And flynn was like well that that should happen here. and then we've had reporting including from maggie haberman and from charles cook at national review. Saying that the president seems to actually believe that he's going to be reinstated into office by august. This is what the my pillow guy. Mike lindell has been saying also since two republican senators lost in the last election. They're gonna get their seats back after these you know they. They examined the ballots in in phoenix and find the bamboo threads and the watermarks. And all the things to prove how the stole the election was stolen from donald trump. And all that stuff that it's actually that's actually going to work. He's actually going to be president again. Which is nuts in again. It's you know as cook emphasized that it seems. The president is not saying this to troll. People he's not saying it to raise money saying it in private people in a way that suggests he actually believes it. and i i don't like to do segments where we just sit around and say god isn't that thing trump said not because i don't think that's very productive but when i look at this tim you know at some point. Republicans need to turn around and start running an election campaign for twenty twenty two. That's presumably in large part about joe biden and joe biden's agenda and y republicans should the government and that sort of thing. It seems like the president who is about to go back out onto the so-called campaign trail and be giving speeches again the former president. He seems intent on keeping the republicans trapped in this psychodrama of his and whatever. The effects are on the republic. It doesn't seem very useful for turning out republican voters and electing elections in the future. I mean it seems that nominating and rallying behind Narcissists without good ability to grasp reality might have been a mistake for the republican party. And it's a mistake that They're continuing to pay the price for. I mean donald trump is is what we raise her children not to be he and that a lot of republicans tried to convince themselves that is total lack of character and sort of Mental acuity with something. That could be gotten over if he had the right advisers and he gave us a right judges and pass tax cuts and he did give us the right judges and pass pretty good tax cuts but it still is a huge cost and maybe in the long run not worth it to put this man where he is because what he's done is. He has fostered so much of a a loyalty from a significant portion of the republican base. Which is a a minority of the electorate. But it's important enough that so many other republicans feel that they have to be one hundred percent loyal to this man and not to what he believed in but to the man and the man was very worst part of the four years of the trump administration. And so i mean it's a gift that will keep on giving the democrats. But i don't think democrats should be happy about it because it's legitimately bad for our country to have The conspiracy theories floating around and the the cult of personality for the worst personalities out of the three hundred and thirty million personalities in america. Liz does this worry you liked him describes what an idiot i mean. It's kind of amusing It's a little bit worrisome. I hope that no violence. No more violence comes out of it. A toss which is really funny. The pillow for really adds to humor to my pillow. Guys running the country. Well not yet. We still have. Joe biden running the country. I think. I think we can leave that there. I've been with tim carney. The washington examiner and liz brunner of the atlantic.
WGN Radio
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on WGN Radio
"Here on 7 20 w G, and I'm Steve Berg. Trent. All right. We all have been learning with bio threat's over the past. Well a year in a few days now, when it comes to covert 19. It's certainly not the only one and there was a commission on bio defense that wants us to be better prepared. For the next 11 of the co chairs his former senator Joe Lieberman, who joins us on a phone line Now, Senator Welcome. Thanks, Steve. Great to be with you for your interest. Absolutely. So we can talk over 19, but I want it. I'm interested in what? Some of the other threats are that you see. What are we facing here? Well, let me set the stage a bit in 2014, Tom Ridge, former 60 or homeland security and I Together form this bipartisan commission on bio defense because we were worried about the danger of bio terrorist attacks but also of infectious disease pandemics. So we started to talk to a bunch of experts and really everybody said Another infectious is a an infectious disease. Pandemic is coming unless the country does something to get ready for your prevented just the way of nature. And we should a report warning about that saying we run. I'm already is a country 2015. We've got a sympathetic response with frankly, not much was done. In response to it, uh, that then because it didn't seem real to people in Congress in the White House, I think, but now it's real. We're got bunch of the devastation of the covert 19 pandemic for the last year. Let me ask you then so a year ago when this was first coming to light You know, I remember conversations I was having with friends. I didn't think anything like this was gonna happen. What was your reaction when you concerned, like, Well, here we go. That was exactly my reaction on Lee because I had had the benefit of talking All these experts, public health people, scientists, and they all said the question is not whether there will be an infectious disease outbreak. It's when it's gonna happen. And then the question is. Will the country be ready with vaccines with testing with massive cetera? T respond to it? Or will it be allowed to become a pandemic? So unfortunately, when it broke out in the early last year, I was really concerned that this is what We had been warned about and of course, now I considered tragically it is And when I get to what you think we should be doing, But before that we've gone through now. Senator, I've got to tell you just before you were on the program tonight. We talked to 102 year old woman. It's her birthday today. She's 102 job. And and I didn't know until I talk to her that she was born during the first pandemic, and she never met her father. Her dad died in 2019 or 20. I guess it would be 20. And here she is, sort of, you know? Yeah, it is till you tell your personal storage and I'll do it briefly. My father's mother died in the flu pandemic 1918. Hey, was just barely three. So he had no memories over And of course I never remember. It had a profound effect on his life. I mean, he developed strengths in response to it, but You know, they say that there was an empty seat at the table. So this is Pandemics of really serious effect on people's lives. The survivors lives let alone isn't something those were but to talk to someone today who was a tenuous, well impacted by that, cause, I'm sure Through. Your father had an impact on YouTube. Okay, So, um, before we get the solutions, then I'm interested in the terror threat. Do you think that's more likely than another pandemic? Or how do you Where do you put that in? What is the threat? So to what are feeling has been that it's pretty clear from American intelligence that there are other big countries. Russia, China, Iran that have Biological weapons programs and We followed them out through our intelligence committee that community closely. Also, there are terrorist groups that we know are trying to develop the capacity to, uh hit us and other countries. With biological weapons here. Here's my fear of about one reaction. To the covert 19 pandemic they have now seen How this pandemic because devastated our country, and I fear that a to use the word copycat is not quite right. But it's the same pen of emotion having seen this vulnerability. Fear that some group particularly are likely a terrorist group. We'll try to use biological weapons against us, so it remains a threat, but the greater threat really Is another infectious disease up brick, and the main point of our Apollo report is that we're not going to end infectious diseases. They're inevitable, but pandemics are not inevitable. On def We work on it now and best the funds and use the science and technology we have. We can get to a point within 10 years where we can stop on infectious disease outbreak. I'm becoming another devastating pandemic led covert 19. What can we do now? If we don't know what the virus is going to be, then that's a really good question. So here's what I've learned. There are 25 families they call him of viruses. One thing we can do is to work. Invest money now to develop a vaccine for one Member of each of those 25 families. Order disease breaks out. One of Iris breaks out. We can figure out now through science map it Which family is it in? How does it differ from the vaccine? We have. We can change the vaccine quickly. That's the first thing we could do this on. Then we put those vaccines that we've developed. Essentially in a warehouse. I mean, we save them on do then If we work at this, we could be ready. Uh, not not to have people stand in line or are go frantically onto the Internet. Cigarette had to be tested or get a vaccine. But honestly, they have enough. And storage, too, for the federal government to send out a testing apparatus, state everybody in the country so you contest yourself at home..
Newsradio 970 WFLA
"infectious disease pandemic" Discussed on Newsradio 970 WFLA
"Flu pandemic of 1918 that killed millions of people around the globe. Joining us to discuss his doctor Jeremy Brown, author of Influenza The 100 Year Hunt to Cure the deadliest disease in history. Thank you for being here, Jeremy. Thank you for having me on the show complete. Yes. So give us a recap of this great flu pandemic. Then they call it the Spanish flu was in 1918 sort of Where did it begin? Where did it spread to? How many people were affected? Can you recap that for Sure, so we are Commemorating that, he said the 100th anniversary off this awful flu pandemic that we believe started either and Haskell camped in Kansas or possibly in France and other theories that began actually in China. But wherever it began by the time it was over, somewhere between 50 and 100, Million people had died across the world in the U. S. The death toll was 675,000 people on its that proportion of people were to be killed in a flood pantomime. Today in the US you're talking about upwards of three million death is far as if you look at the percentage back then, because obviously the population was a lot less so of 675,000 in 1918 years, saying would be over three million nowadays, that's pretty insane. That's right. That's right. And You know, we think about this as a pandemic, and that's actually what it really want it want. It was a classic example of an infectious disease pandemic that really devastated the world that was slowly recovering from the Great War. The World War one, which has just come to an end. Why do you think it was such ed? Terribly deadly strain? I mean, it doesn't seem like it could be possible. Yes. So we're still puzzled by why the strain was so deadly and one of the features off its deadliness was the fact that although flu usually attack The very young and the elderly. Never two populations, usually most of risk this particular virus. The 1918 virus was especially deadly for young, healthy adults. And nobody to this day really understands why that was. There are a number of theories. One is that this virus did something to interfere on which is an important part of our immune system and prevented interference from Working properly in the lung, so it somehow damaged the immune response in the long A second theory was that it was actually nothing to do with the influenza virus itself. But it was most of the death would you to secondary bacterial infections that would follow influenza and, of course, today we thankfully have antibiotics to combat those infections, which they didn't have back then. A third theory is that there was something called a slightly kind storm. Somehow the influenza virus read up the immune system in places and that caused the immune system to actually attack the body itself. Our immune system was fighting our own lung cells on those of the three leading theories now toe why the 1918 pandemic was so very deadly and so very different from all the others. But the truth is When you speak to scientist studying this today, they still are very puzzled by this defining feature of the 1918 virus. But why is it 100 years later, influence is still kills over 30,000 people a year in the U. S. That's right. It's a disease that we think of as both very familiar. It's something that we've all probably experienced some time or another or health of family member. We've had the flu in an overwhelming majority of cases, the vast vast majority of cases it is simply that it's simply an illness. That is something that's going to knock us out for a couple of days and then we will slowly get better from it. Better. You're correct. In a number of cases, this disease actually turns out to be deadly. And we are still puzzled by the fact that this disease can be so un remarkable in some people and yet deadly in others. Now we know certain groups are more affected. So as we said that the young the elderly are special risk. Pregnant women are also it's at a higher risk of complications of flu as our people with chronic lung illnesses, gentle heart disease. Those are some of the classic at risk groups. But as we've heard from the headlines recently, this disease construct otherwise healthy young people. And it still remains there for a very, very important question for us the answer as we think about the kind of infectious diseases that we need to be prepared for, right, But we've we've also interviewed people from the CDC that talk about Vaccinations, the different shots. The Tama flew all those things. And basically it's kind of a crap shoot. Well, so, you know, you mentioned the vaccine. So let's think about that for a moment. We know the vaccines like months and measles and rubella. Polio are incredibly effective. Vaccines at the only have to take once or twice during a transit and you want done. And yet, here we are in the 21st century, and we have to get back scenes every year and you stop and you think? Well, why is that the flu vaccine has given every year but my childhood vaccines were given only once and more than that. It's very best. The flu vaccine is only 50%, effective last year was probably around 30% effective where these other chanted vaccines have incredible high rates effectiveness, you know, because they said, the reason is that flu is a very tricky virus to deal with it constantly one step ahead of us on because it can mutate so very quickly into different strains. We're always trying to play catch up. We can vaccinate against the strain that we think is going to be present. In the flu season, and it turns out that completely different strain was there, so we're always trying to catch up with the flu. And that's why the vaccine to this day's still not really anymore than about 50% effective. Jeremy have a question for you. Maybe you can help us debunk an old wives tale. I was always told I have heard that some people catch the disease that they're being immune from. When you get the shots. I've got the anti flu shot and I start the flu was kind of like a bad cold. After I got my shot. I ended up few days later getting the flu. It turned into swine flu..