Mediaboss Marketing

Experts are saying that the spread of the coronavirus can still be contained in the U.S. with aggressive measures designed to isolate, with affected communities and individuals taking responsibility to self-quarantine if they are exposed or infected.

The response of governments at all levels so far was planned for years ago. Few measures taken by Washington have had time to have an effect, however. Local communities have basically been on their own, which is exactly the way the CDC planned for such an outbreak. The best way to contain the coronavirus is one case at a time -- isolating those affected and those who have come in contact with an infected or potentially infected person. At this level, the healthcare system is not overwhelmed and those who are sickest can receive the care they need to survive.

Of course, this hasn't stopped the anti-Trump hysterics from trying to frighten the American people during an election year. But outbreaks of the virus have been mostly local and manageable -- so far. But we are near a point where the outbreak can tip either way and only vigilance and aggressive prevention measures can keep the coronavirus from becoming a pandemic.

Tom Bossert served as homeland security adviser to President Trump from 2017 to 2018.

This virus is such a threat because it is both highly infectious and lethal, and not enough people are being tested, despite significant recent effort by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By the time cases are confirmed, significant community transmission has likely already occurred. This is a classic tip-of-the-iceberg phenomenon. Its also akin to looking at a star; the light we see today was emitted some time ago. But the most useful comparison now is to a fire that threatens to burn out of control. It is one we can still contain, even extinguish if we act.

The best way to put out the fire is a vaccine, but that is over a year away. In the meantime, we must focus on reducing the height of the outbreak curve. This requires coordination and implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. School closures, isolation of the sick, home quarantines of those who have come into contact with the sick, social distancing, telework and large-gathering cancellations must be implemented before the spread of the disease in any community reaches 1 percent. After that, science tells us, these interventions become far less effective.

China's draconian measures to get control of the virus are now being matched by Italy, which has closed down the entire northern part of the country. But the U.S. is still at a point where local efforts will make all the difference in the world. We discovered this the hard way during the 1918 flu pandemic that killed millions of Americans.

The U.S. is not seeing the rates of infection experienced in Italy because of these aggressive, local steps taken to contain the virus. Individual communities are taking the lead in the fight against the coronavirus, which is exactly what should be happening. As long as local health officials are successful in containing the disease within their individual jurisdictions, there's a pretty good chance we can avoid the worst of the outbreak.

Read this article:
It's Now or Never to Get Control of the Coronavirus | News and Politics - PJ Media

Told through the eyes of a woman named Jane, the campaign consists of a series of vignettes that depict Jane in various stereotypical scenes showcasing how women are often treated as if they are bad with money. The ending shows Jane trying to understand and manage her finances after her husbands death and feeling overwhelmed, reinforcing that when society tells girls they are bad with money, they grow up believing it.

While many banks talk about the gender disparities in the finance industry, they rarely address the bias that causes this inequality, said FCB Canada Co-Chief Creative Officer Nancy Crimi-Lamanna. Were proud to be creative partners with BMO to take a stand to promote financial confidence for women.

BMO is a longtime supporter of the advancement of women:In 2018, BMO announced its commitment to advancing $3 billion in capital to women-owned businesses across Canada. Since making this commitment, BMOs women-led small business clients have grown by almost 10 per cent.

In 2019, BMO became the first bank in Canada to sign the UN Womens Empowerment Principles which offer guidance on how to promote gender equality and womens empowerment in the workplace, marketplace and community. BMO Celebrating Women has recognized 170 women in communities across North America for their achievements in business growth and philanthropy and community involvement. Women make up over 41 per cent of BMOs senior leadership positions in North America.

Directed by Academy Award-nominated documentary film director Hubert Davis, the spot will run in Canada and the U.S. with paid digital media focused in Toronto and Chicago.

See the article here:
BMO and FCB champion women to take control of their financial lives - Shots

Fake news on the coronavirus has spread faster than the virus itself.

We are all aware that dealing with something you know nothing about is never easy. Especially if that something is a disease that is said to be transmitted through air, and especially if you live in Italy where the commentary on what is happening in the socio-political sphere gets pretty much always out of hand. However, the latest scenario has exceeded expectations.

The panic trigger was the appearance in mid-February of the first cases of Italians affected by the coronavirus. These people have had no contact with the two Chinese tourists already hospitalized in Rome. A 38-year-old man from Codogno, a town near Milan, felt sick and went to the local ER but was sent home; after a couple of days, he came back to the hospital and admitted he had lunch with a friend of his, a businessman who had recently came back from a work trip from China, and the medical staff tested him for the coronavirus. Almost simultaneously, in Vo Euganeo, a town near Padua, an elderly couple tested positive for the coronavirus and the 78-years-old husband died.

The morning after, major newspapers published headlines such as: Virus, the North of fear (La Repubblica), Infections and death, the disease is among us (Il Giorno), Vade retro virus (Libero), Italy infected (Il Giornale). After a 10-hour-long meeting, the government decided to completely isolate the areas in which the virus was spreading, sending military reinforcements to the local police. Next, people lost their self-control. In less than a day, pharmacies ran out of masks and hand-sanitizing gel and the prices of these items on Amazon skyrocketed.

My university in Venice closed, since we were in the same region of Vo Euganeo and my parents and the ones of most of my friends forced us to come home, fearing that the government would isolate our city too where the first two cases had occurred. In the meantime, people looted supermarkets even in regions where no cases of the illness had been found and social media was invaded with videos of people running through supermarket aisles with two shopping carts full of food and water.

It is debatable whether talk shows and the media as a whole were the major cause of this exaggerated and hysterical reaction to a possible pandemic. However, after the first case was officially linked to Covid-19, television media started inviting virologists on a daily basis, sometimes more than one at a time, to discuss the virus, often exploiting the differing explanations among them as in a political debate.

When the government and the press realized that the situation was getting completely out of control, not only among the citizens but also with regards to the economy with a 4 per cent decline in the Milan stock market by the second day, an increase in the spread between the Italian BTP and the German BUND and an increasingly dramatic situation for small business owners they changed their tune. Overnight, newspapers switched from a the end is nigh attitude to its little more than a flu, you just need to wash your hands and the government, which frantically ordered the closure of churches, museums and theatres, gave permission to reopen almost everything.

All the measures applied in order to pacify the population, backfired. People mistrusted the new calm and language of reassurance, relying instead on social media and talk shows as their primary sources of information.

Too much had been revealed to the population, and now the main goal was to keep people calm, even though the danger was increasing. Instead of creating panic and sensationalising news of the virus, the press, urged by the government, finally started giving actual numbers and data in place of spreading alarmism with catchy headlines. Fake news under the form of voice messages of people who pretended to be doctors started circulating on WhatsApp, spreading completely wrong and non-scientific information about the nature of the virus and how to protect yourself from it. Fake cases were reported daily and conspiracy posts on social media regarding the reason of the spreading of the disease were taken as legitimate press.

Peoples confusion was such a concern for the authorities that the Italian government activated the public utility number 1500 in order to answer citizens questions about the virus.

Social media was once again used as a quick and inexpensive propaganda machine by the League and Fratelli dItalia, two major far-right parties, to mobilize their voters against immigrants and demand for the closing of our ports in Southern Italy for health-related safety. This, despite the fact that three of the most affected regions (Lombardia, Veneto and Emilia Romagna) are all in the North and two of them are and have been governed by the League and centre-right for years. Matteo Salvini and Giorgia Meloni, the leaders of the aforesaid parties, called for the resignation of the government which, according to them, is not doing enough to stop the spread of the disease. Even Alessandra Mussolini, the niece of Benito Mussolini, was invited on TV to say what she thought about the coronavirus situation.

The latest official data shows 3,858 as infected, among which 1,155 are not even hospitalized but at home in self-isolation. So far, 148 are dead and 414 have recovered. The numbers should not have caused such fear in a nation composed of over 60 million citizens. However, in a nation where the current government is mistrusted and people have to relearn how to receive and give news properly, the most reliable information continues to be what one finds on their favourite Facebook group.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Go here to read the rest:
Italys battle with coronavirus and misinformation - Shout Out UK

USA TODAY answers a question you may be wondering: Is coronavirus worse than the flu? USA TODAY

As panic over the novel coronavirus rises, myths and misinformation have begun to circulate.

Across social media and in communities that are starting to see their first cases, people have been wondering whether the flu has a higher mortality rate and if healthy people should stock up on masks.

Health professionals and others have answeredsome of the most common questions people have been asking about the virus researchers still don't know much about.

Yes. Seasonal flu shots are important to protect yourself from the flubut are not effective against coronavirus.

No. The flu and coronavirus are two different illness and the flu shot will not protect someone from coronavirus.

The general public does not need to wear masks. Those who are sick should wear masks to prevent germs from spreading to others.

Yes. Research on the mortality rate of coronavirus is still ongoing, but the World Health Organization announced March 3 that estimates put the global rate at about 3.4%, compared to 0.1% for the flu.

In Iowa: Here's the latest on cases and what you need to know

We answer the often searched question: "What are the symptoms of coronavirus versus the flu?" USA TODAY

No. The new coronavirus is not a bioweapon engineered by scientists in China. Early last month, bloggers began to circulate a theory on social mediaand other websitesthat the virus was man-made.

Scientists are still researching how COVID-19 emerged but say it is not man-made. The first infection, reported in December2019,was linked to a marketin Wuhan, China. It's still unclear how transmission unfolded.

No, it's free.FactCheck.org reportedthat aclaim that a test for COVID-19 costs patients in the U.S. more than $3,000 originatedon Twitter, where it amassed more than 250,000 likes and retweets. It became a meme that spread on Facebook.

In actuality, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the use of two testsone from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and one from the New York State Department of Public Healthand neither agency charges patients for the test, according to FactCheck.org.

More: Iowa biotech firm says it has produced enough coronavirus tests for 700,000 patients

If someone suspects they have coronavirus, they should consult with their doctor and public health professionals. Coronavirus has a range of symptoms and can be more dangerous to those with underlying conditions. People who suspect they have coronavirus should also call ahead before visiting the doctor so physicians can be prepared.

Think you have coronavirus?Call first! Here's what to expect at the doctor's office

In apress briefing last month,Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC'sNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, cast doubt on this rumor. "Im happy to hope that it goes down as the weather warms up, but I think its premature to assume that, and were certainly not using that to sit back and expect it to go away," Messonnier said.

Like the common cold and flu, COVID-19 spreads through respiratory droplets, and most viral respiratory diseases have seasons. They spread more during the colder months, but you can still get sick from them during the warmer months, too.

Funny, but no. In January, the alcoholic beverage from Mexicoshowed a surge in Google searches, along with the term "corona beer virus"and "beer virus."

In the United States, Google Trends calculated that 57% of the people that searched one of those terms searched for "beer virus,"and the remaining 43% searched for "corona beer virus." States like Hawaii, New Mexico and Kansas searched"beer virus" more, whereas states like South Carolina, Colorado and Arizona searched "corona beer virus" more.

FactCheck.org reported that astory circulating on social media falsely claimedthat the Vatican has confirmed that the pope and two of his aides tested positive for the virus. Several Italian news outlets also reported that the Pope was tested for the virus.

The Vatican has not verified any of these claims, nor has it disclosed whether or not the pope was tested for the coronavirus, according to FactCheck.org. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni issued a statement saying, "The cold the Holy Father was diagnosed with recently is running its course, with no symptoms related to other pathologies."

Social media users sharing a CDC infographic showing various styles of facial hair have suggested that the agencyis instructing people to shave beards and mustaches to prevent the coronavirus.

The infographic actually has nothing to do with the new virus. The CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healthfirst published the image in 2017to show workers what types of facial hairstyles work with a tight-sealing respirator.Facial hair that lies along the sealing area of a respirator, such as beards, sideburnsor some mustaches, interferes with respirators that rely on a tight facepiece seal to achieve maximum protection, according to the CDC.

People will not be able to immediately tell if someone has coronavirus. Symptoms initially present similar to the flu, and people should visit their doctors if they are concerned.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not received any reports of pets or other animals contracting the coronavirus. There is also no evidence to support claims that animals can spread coronavirus to people. However, animals can spread other diseases to people, so Dr. Caitlin Pedati, medical director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, said people should always make sure to wash their hands after being around animals.

Health officials are not sure yet how contagious coronavirus is.

The time period for recovery will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and might vary depending on the person.

Grace Hauck and Adrianna Rodriguez contributed to this article.

Sarah LeBlanc covers trending newsfor the Register. Reach her at 515-284-8161 or sleblanc@registermedia.com.

Your subscription makes work like this possible. Join today at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.

Read or Share this story: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2020/03/09/coronavirus-symptom-iowa-public-health-official-answer-question-mortality-rate-theories/4892263002/

Follow this link:
Myth or fact: We dispel the rumors surrounding the coronavirus - Des Moines Register

The debate over whether parents should leave a wailing baby to cry it out or rush to their aid has been reignited by research that suggests allowing them to bawl does no harm.

Attachment theory suggests parents should dash to calm their infants, and proponents say leaving infants to cry could have knock-on effects including damaging the bond between parent and child and raising the infants stress levels.

Others, however, argue that picking a baby up reinforces crying, and that parents should leave the child.

Now researchers say they have found that leaving infants to cry has no impact on their behavioural development or their attachment to their mother, but may help them develop self-control.

Prof Dieter Wolke, the co-author of the study from the University of Warwick, said the findings suggest parents should not worry too much about which approach they take.

We may have made a mountain out of a molehill, he said.

Amy Brown, a professor of child public health at Swansea University who was not involved in the research, said the study should be treated with caution. Few mothers in the study often left their infant to cry it out until they reached 18 months, she said, and the study did not consider how long parents left their child or whether they found it helpful.

This doesnt prove that controlled crying is a beneficial thing, she said. . Nor does the study talk about how distressing a lot of mothers find it when their baby cries.

Writing in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, researchers from the University of Warwick report how they followed 178 babies and their mothers in the UK from birth to 18 months.

Mothers were asked to fill in questionnaires to report how often they left their baby to cry it out at several points in time: shortly after birth and at three months, six months and 18 months. They were also asked how often and for how long their child cried at various point in the day as a newborn and at three months and 18 months.

At three and 18 months the team explored how sensitive the mother was towards their infant, using video-recorded interactions between the two, and at 18 months it assessed the childrens behavioural development and attachment to their mother.

The team found mothers rarely left their baby to cry as newborns, but the practice became more common as the child grew older, with about two-thirds of mothers allowing the infant to cry sometimes or often by 18 months.

That, the researchers add, appears to bring benefits, noting that children left to cry a few times as newborns cried for shorter periods at 18 months.

The team say the practice seems does not seem to cause harm. It saw no negative impact on the level of attachment between mother and child, the mothers sensitivity or the behavioural development of the child at 18 months, the latter assessed through a combination of techniques including a questionnaire completed by the parent, a psychologists report and watching the infant play with its mother.

We neither recommend leaving infant to cry out nor responding immediately, the authors write. Wolke said the findings suggested parents intuitively know how to best to respond to their infant, and both they and the child adapt over time.

He also said the research did not mean parents should just ignore a crying infant, particularly early in life.

Crying is the only way of communication of a baby, for example for feeding, safety and things, he said. So caregivers should react to the crying, and automatically we do this. Letting the baby cry for a few minutes may be helpful though, he added, particularly if it is not feeding time. Then they can learn how to self-soothe themselves, he said.

The study has limitations, including that it relied on reports of crying rather than direct observation. Nor was it able to unpick whether leaving the child to wail is the cause of shorter subsequent crying periods.

Wolke said that because of parents strong attitudes on the topic, it would not be possible to carry out a randomised control trial to explore the issue.

Dr Charlotte Faircloth, an expert on parenting from University College London, said the cry it out issue was hotly debated.

The new study will be reassuring for many parents who have used these kinds of approaches with their babies, but as the study authors suggest, more credit should be given to parents in trusting that they will find an approach that suits them and their families, she said.

Stephen Scott, a professor of child health and behaviour at Kings College, said a number of studies had shown that overindulged children can lack resilience and develop difficulties later in life.

He also said the latest findings made sense from an evolutionary point of view. It is very unlikely that in the jungle when we were in our caves and off hunting, that a child left to cry for a bit would then be damaged by it, he said. It just wouldnt make for a very resilient species, and yet we are incredibly resilient.

Read more:
Should you let babies 'cry it out'? Debate reignited by new study - The Guardian