The Hidden!: Winter vaccine schedule for Disabled people unclear

6 Sept 2021

Winter vaccine schedule for Disabled people unclear

WARNING

They're going after the young and old and people who are not in control of their own primary health care choices

Winter vaccine schedule for Disabled people unclear

26 August 2021

Plans for the universal roll-out of a third booster vaccine are in doubt.

The Government is now likely to propose that only over-16s with immune-suppression, care home residents, over-70s, frontline health and social care workers and people classified as clinically extremely vulnerable may be considered for a third jab.

(basically those who they deem a drain on the system and useless eaters who can be harvested)

The news comes as new research shows that fully vaccinated adults can harbour Delta variant virus levels as high as unvaccinated people. (because it doesn't exist) There is not yet a consensus on whether this causes greater transmission of the virus, but it does raise concerns. (you cant transmit what doesn't exist)

The current data "Suggests" (there is no evidence) that people who cannot be vaccinated, and those with conditions the government does not recognise as making them clinically extremely vulnerable, may be at greater risk.

The government is currently funding a study, OCTAVE DUO,

octave + duo = to appoint a duo to office that will lie down for them and not speak out against them (IE be the bitch of the nwo (gov +nhs)

(anagram of vocate (third-person singular simple present vocates, present participle vocating, simple past and past participle vocated)

(obsolete) To appoint to a religious office

covate

Italian

Verb

covate

vocate

inflection of vocare

inflection of covare

Verb

covàre (first-person singular present cóvo, first-person singular past historic covài, past participle covàto, auxiliary avere)

(transitive) (of a bird) to brood (keep an egg warm)

(transitive, figuratively, by extension) to brood (protect)

(transitive) (of an emotion, desire, etc.) to well up or cultivate

From Latin cubāre, present active infinitive of cubō (“I lie down”)

tacevo

first-person singular imperfect indicative of tacere

tacére (first-person singular present tàccio, first-person singular past historic tàcqui, past participle taciùto, auxiliary avere) (transitive or intransitive)

to be silent

Su ciò di cui non si può parlare, si deve tacere. ― Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.

to dummy up

to keep quiet

tacere m (plural taceri)

silence

tacére (first-person singular present tàccio, first-person singular past historic tàcqui, past participle taciùto, auxiliary avere) (transitive or intransitive)

to be silent

Su ciò di cui non si può parlare, si deve tacere. ― Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.

to dummy up

to keep quiet

: continued,,,,,, to determine the effectiveness of a third vaccine for people with weakened immune systems. The initial OCTAVE trial has published data showing that 89% of immuno-compromised people produce antibodies following vaccination, with 60% generating a strong antibody response after a second dose. The remaining 40% show a low or undetectable immune response.

(fyi antibodies are capable of transmitting the disease from host to host even without symptoms)

On 1 August 2021, 91% of people identified as clinically extremely vulnerable, had received both doses of the vaccine, with 94% having had their first dose.

The government is also considering reducing the age limit for people who can have vaccines down from 16 to 12 (illegal AF) with a view that this will stop the virus from sweeping through secondary schools in the autumn term, and protect clinically vulnerable teenagers. I refer you to the above statement "research shows that fully vaccinated adults can harbour Delta variant virus levels as high as unvaccinated people". (because it doesn't exist so giving them the "stab jab" wont do anything to prevent any transmission)

There is not yet a consensus on whether this causes greater transmission of the virus,

DR UK’s Fazilet Hadi said: “We heard from many Disabled people who were vulnerable to the worst effects of the virus during lockdown who were not in the top priority groups for vaccination. If the Government is going to offer booster jabs to those it considers to be the most clinically vulnerable, it must focus on groups one to six, not just groups one to four. Group six included people with conditions such as kidney disease, learning disabilities, motor neurone disease and ME. "We know that hospitalisations and deaths are down as a result of the vaccine rollout", (Utter BS its because no one trust the nhs and therefore they're not attending hospitals so admission rates are down therefore the numbers reflect this and that is why its got nothing to do with the harmacuiticles and i quote "research shows that fully vaccinated adults can harbour Delta variant virus levels as high as unvaccinated people") but there are still thought to be over two million people who have developed long covid. This debilitating condition wrecks both lives and the economy.” errrm just no on so many levels as its because of the government and their illegal policy has wreaked the lives of the people and the economy not a fictional disease that doesn't fulfil Koch's postulates (see additional files on links below) and was downgraded to a non HCID on the 19th of march last year meaning you cant even catch it as the lowest level of HCID is your average sniffle and it didnt even make that ranking so can we please for the love of your families and friends

#HangThemNowWhileWeStillCan

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/06/definition-of-kochs-postulates.html

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2021/07/kochs-postulates-2-from-wikipedia-free.html

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/12/psa-on-vaccines-hcids.html

THIS

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/04/evidence-of-covert-political-coup-and.html

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease.

Koch's postulates

Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle, and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, both of which are now ascribed to bacteria. The postulates have been controversially generalized to other diseases. More modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health, and Falkow's criteria for microbiological pathogenesis.

Definition of Koch's postulates

Medical Author: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

Privacy & Trust Info

Koch's postulates: In 1890 the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out his celebrated criteria for judging whether a given bacteria is the cause of a given disease. Koch's criteria brought some much-needed scientific clarity to what was then a very confused field.

Koch's postulates are as follows:

The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.

The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.

The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

However, Koch's postulates have their limitations and so may not always be the last word. They may not hold if:

The particular bacteria (such as the one that causes leprosy) cannot be "grown in pure culture" in the laboratory.

There is no animal model of infection with that particular bacteria.

A harmless bacteria may cause disease if:

It has acquired extra virulence factors making it pathogenic.

It gains access to deep tissues via trauma, surgery, an IV line, etc.

It infects an immunocompromised patient.

Not all people infected by a bacteria may develop disease-subclinical infection is usually more common than clinically obvious infection.

Despite such limitations, Koch's postulates are still a useful benchmark in judging whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between a bacteria (or any other type of microorganism) and a clinical disease.

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle,[3] and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, but they have been controversially generalized to other diseases. These postulates were generated prior to understanding of modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health.

Contents

1 The postulates

2 History

3 For the 21st century

4 See also

5 References

6 Further reading

The postulates

Koch's postulates of disease.

Koch's postulates are the following:

The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

However, Koch later abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera[4] and, later, of typhoid fever. Asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viral diseases such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.

The second postulate may also be suspended for certain microorganisms or entities that cannot (at the present time) be grown in pure culture.[5] Viruses also require host cells to grow and reproduce and therefore cannot be grown in pure cultures.

The third postulate specifies "should", not "must", because as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,[6] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection. Noninfection may be due to such factors as general health and proper immune functioning; acquired immunity from previous exposure or vaccination; or genetic immunity, as with the resistance to malaria conferred by possessing at least one sickle cell allele.

There are a few other exceptions to Koch's postulates. A single pathogen can cause several disease conditions. Additionally, a single disease condition can be caused by several different microorganisms. Some pathogens cannot be cultured in the lab, and some pathogens only cause disease in humans.[7]

In summary, an infectious agent that satisfies Koch's postulates can be concluded to cause disease, but due to the postulates' shortcomings they are not strictly necessary for this conclusion.

History

Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.[8] Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.[4][6] Attempts to rigidly apply Koch's postulates to the diagnosis of viral diseases in the late 19th century, at a time when viruses could not be seen or isolated in culture, may have impeded the early development of the field of virology.[9][10] Koch's postulates have been recognized as largely obsolete by epidemiologists since the 1950s.[11][12] Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, they are not routinely used to demonstrate causality.

Koch's postulates have also influenced scientists who examine microbial pathogenesis from a molecular point of view. In the 1980s, a molecular version of Koch's postulates was developed to guide the identification of microbial genes encoding virulence factors.[13]

That HIV causes AIDS does not follow from Koch's postulates,[14] which may have supported HIV/AIDS denialism. The role of oncoviruses in causing some cancers also does not follow Koch's postulates.[15]

While Koch’s postulates have served the microbiology community well for nearly two centuries, new discoveries of methods of infections as a result of Koch and many others’ hard work have shown that diseases and certain conditions are not always caused by one lonesome microbe species. According to a study done by Oliver A. Todd and Brain M Peters, a newly discovered interaction between the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus and “fungal opportunist” Candida albicans is being considered a co-infection that is found in the bodies of sick patients who suffer from different conditions [2019]. This kind of synergism was found to be lethal in a separate study conducted by Carlson on mice. When mice were infected with the two mentioned pathogens above independently, sickness resulted but the mice were able to recover. When infected with both pathogens together, the mice had nearly a 100% mortality rate. This goes to show that some pathogens cannot be as easily isolated, and/ or may need extra techniques and steps that may better prove causation of the disease.[16]

For the 21st century

This section includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. (January 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Koch's postulates have played an important role in microbiology, yet they have major limitations. For example, Koch was well aware that in the case of cholera, the causal agent, Vibrio cholerae, could be found in both sick and healthy people, invalidating his first postulate. Furthermore, viral diseases were not yet discovered when Koch formulated his postulates, and there are many viruses that do not cause illness in all infected individuals, a requirement of the first postulate. Additionally, it was known through experimentation that Helicobacter pylori caused mild inflammation of the gastric lining when ingested. As evident as the inflammation was, it still did not immediately convince skeptics that H. pylori was associated with ulcers. Eventually, skeptics were silenced when a newly developed antibiotic treatment eliminated the bacteria and ultimately cured the disease. Koch's postulates are also limited in their ability to be effective when evaluating biofilms, Somni cells, and viruses. With biofilms, their cultivation process is very unique because they have to be cultivated by molecular methods rather than traditional methods. The problem with this is that these alternative methods do not detect the cause of infection; which therefore interferes with the third postulate that states microorganisms should cause disease.[17] In the case of Somnicells and viruses, they can not be cultured. The Somnicells, also called sleeping cells, become dormant due to strain on the cell. This state of sleep prevents the cell from growing in the culture.[18] This is very similar to how viruses can not grow in axenic culture. Viruses must be living to replicate, and the culture is not a suitable host for that. [19] Allyson Byrd and Julia Segre have some ideas for how we should adapt the postulates to make them more accurate for today’s world. Their revisions have to do with the third postulate; they don’t agree that a pathogen will always cause disease. Their first revision has to do with colonization resistance. Colonization resistance allows an organism to feed off of the host and protect it from pathogens that would have caused disease if the organism was not attached to the host. Their second revision is that a community of microbes could help inhibit pathogens even further, preventing the pathogen of spreading disease like it is supposed to. [20] Similar to Byrd and Segre, Thomas Rivers had revisions to Koch’s Postulates. He believed, even though the original postulates were made as a guide, they were actually an obstacle. Rivers wanted to show the link between viruses and diseases. Rivers cultivated his own Postulates; the first one stated that the virus must be connected to disease consistently. Secondly, the outcome of experimentation must indicate that the virus is directly responsible for the disease.[21] Contradictions and occurrences such as these have led many to believe that a fifth postulate may be required. If enacted, this postulate would state that sufficient microbial data should allow scientists to treat, cure, or prevent the particular disease.

More recently, modern nucleic acid-based microbial detection methods have made Koch's original postulates even less relevant. These nucleic acid-based methods make it possible to identify microbes that are associated with a disease, but cannot be cultured. Also, nucleic acid-based detection methods are very sensitive, and can often detect the very low levels of viruses that are found in healthy people without disease.

The use of these new methods has led to revised versions of Koch's postulates. Fredricks and Relman have suggested the following postulates for the 21st century:[22]

A nucleic acid sequence belonging to a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease. Microbial nucleic acids should be found preferentially in those organs or gross anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in those organs that lack pathology.

Fewer, or no, copies of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.

With resolution of disease, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. With clinical relapse, the opposite should occur.

When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship.

The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.

Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level: efforts should be made to demonstrate specific in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.

These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.

These modifications are still controversial in that they do not account well for established disease associations, such as papillomavirus and cervical cancer, nor do they take into account prion diseases, which have no nucleic acid sequences of their own.

Koch's postulates 2

Koch's postulates 2 with links

Robert Hermann Koch (11 December 1843 – 27 May 1910) was a German physician who developed Koch's postulates.[1]

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle,[3] and refined and published by Koch in 1890.[citation needed] Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, both of which are now ascribed to bacteria. The postulates have been controversially generalized to other diseases.[citation needed] More modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) and asymptomatic carriers.[citation needed] They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health,[citation needed] and Falkow's criteria for microbial pathogenesis.

Contents
1The postulates
2History
3For the 21st century
4See also
5References
6Further reading
The postulates[edit]

Koch's postulates of disease.

Koch's postulates are the following:
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

However, Koch later abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera [4] and, later, of typhoid fever.[citation needed] Asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viral diseases such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects.[citation needed]

The second postulate may also be suspended for certain microorganisms or entities that cannot (at the present time) be grown in pure culture.[5] Viruses also require host cells to grow and reproduce and therefore cannot be grown in pure cultures.

The third postulate specifies "should" not "must" because, as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,[6] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection. Noninfection may be due to such factors as general health and proper immune functioning; acquired immunity from previous exposure or vaccination; or genetic immunity, as with the resistance to malaria conferred by possessing at least one sickle cell allele.[citation needed]

There are a few other exceptions to Koch's postulates. A single pathogen can cause several disease conditions. Additionally, a single disease condition can be caused by several different microorganisms. Some pathogens cannot be cultured in the lab, and some pathogens only cause disease in humans.[7]

In summary, an infectious agent can be considered to be a sufficient cause for a disease if it satisfies Koch's postulates. Failing that, the postulates suggest that the infectious agent is a necessary, but insufficient, cause for a disease.[citation needed]
History[edit]

Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.[8] Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.[4][6] Attempts to apply Koch's postulates rigidly to the diagnosis of viral diseases in the late 19th century, at a time when viruses could not be seen or isolated in culture, may have impeded the early development of the field of virology.[9][10] Koch's postulates have been recognized as largely obsolete by epidemiologists since the 1950s,[11][3] so, while retaining historical importance and continuing to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, they are not routinely used to demonstrate causality.

Koch's postulates have also influenced scientists who examine microbial pathogenesis from a molecular point of view. In 1988, a molecular version of Koch's postulates was developed to guide the identification of microbial genes encoding virulence factors.[12]

That HIV causes AIDS does not follow from Koch's postulates,[13] which may have supported HIV/AIDS denialism. The role of oncoviruses in causing some cancers also does not follow Koch's postulates.[14]

New discoveries of methods of infections as a result of Koch and many others' work have shown that some diseases and conditions are not always caused by a single microbe species. According to a 2019 study by Todd and Peters, a newly discovered interaction between the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus and "fungal opportunist" Candida albicans is being considered a co-infection that is found in the bodies of sick patients who suffer from different conditions. This kind of synergism was found to be lethal in a separate study conducted by Carlson on mice. When mice were infected with one pathogen independently of the other, sickness resulted but the mice were able to recover. When infected with both pathogens together, the mice had a near-100% mortality rate, showing that some pathogens cannot be as easily isolated or may need extra techniques and steps that better prove causation of the disease.[15]
For the 21st century[edit]
Main article: Microbial pathogenesis

Koch's postulates have played an important role in microbiology, yet they have major limitations. For example, Koch was well aware in the case of cholera that the causal agent, Vibrio cholerae, could be found in both sick and healthy people, invalidating his first postulate. Furthermore, viral diseases were not yet discovered when Koch formulated his postulates, and there are many viruses that do not cause illness in all infected individuals, a requirement of the first postulate. Additionally, it was known through experimentation that Helicobacter pylori caused mild inflammation of the gastric lining when ingested. As evident as the inflammation was, it still did not immediately convince skeptics that H. pylori was associated with stomach ulcers. Eventually, skeptics were silenced when a newly developed antibiotic treatment eliminated the bacteria and ultimately cured the disease.

Koch's postulates are also of limited effectiveness when evaluating biofilms, Somni cells, and viruses. Cultivation of biofilms requires cultivation by molecular methods rather than traditional methods, and these alternative methods do not detect the cause of infection, which therefore interferes with the third postulate, that microorganisms should cause disease.[16] For example, Somni cells and viruses cannot be cultured. The Somni cells, also called sleeping cells, become dormant due to strain on the cell. This state of sleep prevents the cell from growing in the culture.[17] This is similar to how viruses cannot grow in axenic culture: viruses must be living to replicate, so the culture is not a suitable host.[18]

Byrd and Segre have proposed changes to the postulates to make them more accurate for today's world. Their revisions involve the third postulate: they disagree that a pathogen will always cause disease. Their first revision involves colonization resistance. Colonization resistance allows an organism to feed off of the host and protect it from pathogens that would have caused disease if the organism was not attached to the host. Their second revision is that a community of microbes could help inhibit pathogens even further, preventing the pathogen from spreading disease as it is supposed to.[19] Similar to Byrd and Segre, Rivers suggested revisions to Koch's postulates. He believed that, although the original postulates were made as a guide, they were actually an obstacle. Rivers wanted to show the link between viruses and diseases. Rivers' own postulates are: the virus must be connected to disease consistently; the outcome of experimentation must indicate that the virus is directly responsible for the disease.[18] Contradictions and occurrences such as these have led many to believe that a fifth postulate may be required. If accepted, this postulate would state that sufficient microbial data should allow scientists to treat, cure, or prevent the particular disease.[citation needed]

More recently, modern nucleic-acid-based microbial detection methods have made Koch's original postulates even less relevant. These methods enable the identification of microbes that are associated with a disease, but which cannot be cultured. Also, these methods are very sensitive, and can often detect very low levels of viruses in healthy people.[citation needed]

These new methods have led to revised versions of Koch's postulates. Fredricks and Relman have suggested a set of postulates for the novel field of microbial pathogenesis.[18] These modifications are still controversial in that they do not account well for established disease associations, such as papillomavirus and cervical cancer, nor do they take into account prion diseases, which have no nucleic acid sequences of their own.[citation needed]
See also[edit]
Bradford Hill criteria
Causal inference
Mill's Methods
Molecular Koch's postulates
Willoughby D. Miller
References[edit]

^ Koch, R. (1876). "Untersuchungen über Bakterien: V. Die Ätiologie der Milzbrand-Krankheit, begründet auf die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Bacillus anthracis"[Investigations into bacteria: V. The etiology of anthrax, based on the ontogenesis of Bacillus anthracis] (PDF). Cohns Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen (in German). 2 (2): 277–310.
^ "Koch". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
^ Jump up to:a b Evans AS (October 1978). "Causation and disease: a chronological journey. The Thomas Parran Lecture". American Journal of Epidemiology. 108 (4): 249–58. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112617. PMID 727194.
^ Jump up to:a b Koch, R. (1893). "Ueber den augenblicklichen Stand der bakteriologischen Choleradiagnose" [About the instantaneous state of the bacteriological diagnosis of cholera]. Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten (in German). 14: 319–38. doi:10.1007/BF02284324. S2CID 9388121.
^ Inglis TJ (November 2007). "Principia aetiologica: taking causality beyond Koch's postulates". Journal of Medical Microbiology. 56 (Pt 11): 1419–22. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.47179-0. PMID 17965339.
^ Jump up to:a b Koch Robert (1884). "2 Die Aetiologie der Tuberkulose". Mitt Kaiser Gesundh. pp. 1–88.
^ Slonczewski, Joan; Foster, John (2011). Microbiology An Evolving Science Second Edition. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. pp. 20–22. ISBN 978-0-393-93447-2.
^ Walker L, Levine H, Jucker M (2006). "Koch's postulates and infectious proteins". Acta Neuropathol. 112 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1007/s00401-006-0072-x. PMID 16703338. S2CID 22210933.
^ Brock TD (1999). Robert Koch: a life in medicine and bacteriology. Washington DC: American Society of Microbiology Press. ISBN 1-55581-143-4.[page needed]
^ Evans AS (May 1976). "Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited". Yale J Biol Med. 49 (2): 175–95. PMC 2595276. PMID 782050.
^ Huebner, Robert J. (April 1957). "Criteria for etiologic association of prevalent viruses with prevalent diseases; the virologist's dilemma". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 67 (8): 430–8. Bibcode:1957NYASA..67..430H. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1957.tb46066.x. PMID 13411978.
^ Falkow S (1988). "Molecular Koch's postulates applied to microbial pathogenicity". Rev. Infect. Dis. 10 (Suppl 2): S274–6. doi:10.1093/cid/10.Supplement_2.S274. PMID 3055197.
^ Weiss, Robin A.; Jaffe, Harold W. (1990). "Duesberg, HIV and AIDS". Nature. 345 (6277): 659–60. Bibcode:1990Natur.345..659W. doi:10.1038/345659a0. PMID 2163025. S2CID 802158.
^ Moore, Patrick S.; Chang, Yuan (2013). "The conundrum of causality in tumor virology: The cases of KSHV and MCV". Seminars in Cancer Biology. 26: 4–12. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2013.11.001. PMC 4040341. PMID 24304907.
^ Todd, Olivia; Peters, Brian (3 September 2019). "Candida Albicans and Staphylococcus aureus Pathogenicity and Polymicrobial Interactions: Lessons beyond Koch's Postulates". Journal of Fungi. 5 (81): 81. doi:10.3390/jof5030081. PMC 6787713. PMID 31487793.
^ Hosainzadegan, Hasan; Rovshan, Khalilov; Gholizadeh, Pourya (12 August 2019). "The necessity to revise Koch's postulates and its application to infectious and non-infectious diseases: a mini-review". European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 39 (2): 4. doi:10.1007/s10096-019-03681-1. PMID 31440916. S2CID 201283277.
^ Grimes, Jay (1 May 2006). "Koch's Postulates - Then and Now" (PDF). American Society for Microbiology. 1: 226.
^ Jump up to:a b c Fredricks, David; Relman, David (January 1996). "Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch's Postulates". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 9 (1): 18–33. doi:10.1128/CMR.9.1.18. PMC 172879. PMID 8665474.
^ Byrd, Allyson; Segre, Julia (15 January 2016). "Adapting Koch's Postulates". Science. 351 (6270): 224–226. doi:10.1126/science.aad6753. PMID 26816362. S2CID 29595548.
Further reading[edit]
Contagion: Historical Views of Diseases and Epidemics from Harvard Library

evidence of a covert political coup and conspiracy against the British peoples with proof of the criminal actions of the illegal government

#WakeUp

😈💩👎

Definition: a notifiable disease in law is if somebody dies of a notifiable disease then there has to be an inquest with a jury,(and not simply written off as "suspected" CV19 or "confirmed" despite the lack of an actual test to do so).

in the coronavirus bill that the government has just recently produced they are originally stating that people didn't need an inquest by jury because covid 19 wasn't a

notifiable disease, yet from their own data yet again it shows it is clearly is listed as one by 2010 and in further gov documentation from 2015 proving that it is a conspiracy to deceive and an act of economic and social terrorism and genocide as the direct result of the actions of government, which includes the unlawful lock down "guide lines" which have bankrupted the nation and caused the untold suffering and the deaths of thousands and more, all while they scam all the taxpayer funded assets and kill off any old or weak or immune compromised persons to make further monies from their deaths and they have used policy to get people to such as the NHS workers to destroy the evidence to the crime with these illegal guidelines and unlawful acts, as previously stated they have to "by law" have had an inquest for each death from covid 19 since the beginning of this illegal lock down and all the way back to 2010 when it was first categorized as notifiable disease and they knew it, which shows their guilt in this global genocide cover up and conspiracy and have and gone as far as to outright lie to the people every step of the way with false information and flawed germ theory and fake statistics and to kill the innocent and cover it up and ransack our nations wealth and that of many others with a lie and nothing but fear propagation through the media, and all the people supporting the system have helped them in this crime by being apathetic in their actions of just doing as they are told because allegedly its "for your own safety" (Ihre eigene Sicherheit which basically means if you don't do what your told when we say it, or you wont be safe, because we will hurt you or destroy your life or career with illegal means), which has had the effect to get the people to help inadvertently cover up this crime and they have continued to perpetuate it upon the peoples of Britain and the Earth to this day, further more if you look at the following links you will see they have only just since updated the status from the 5th of march to a notifiable disease, which requires legally a inquest determined by jury to ascertain the true cause of death which they are still not doing in a clear violation of the law, which is evidence of their deceit and crimes against the peoples and nations of earth,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-covid-19-listed-as-a-notifiable-disease

Published 5 March 2020

From:Department of Health and Social Care

At 6.15pm on 5 March 2020, a statutory instrument was made into law that adds COVID-19 to the list of notifiable diseases and SARS-COV-2 to the list of notifiable causative agents.

This change was made by adding them to the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010.

This change in law requires GPs to report all cases of COVID-19 to Public Health England.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/notifiable-diseases-and-causative-organisms-how-to-report

Registered medical practitioners: report notifiable diseases

Registered medical practitioners (RMPs) have a statutory duty to notify the ‘proper officer’ at their local council or local health protection team (HPT) of suspected cases of certain infectious diseases.

List of notifiable diseases

Diseases notifiable to local authority proper officers under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010:

Acute encephalitis

Acute infectious hepatitis

Acute meningitis

Acute poliomyelitis

Anthrax

Botulism

Brucellosis

Cholera

COVID-19👈👈👈

Diphtheria

Enteric fever (typhoid or paratyphoid fever)

Food poisoning

Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS)

Infectious bloody diarrhoea

Invasive group A streptococcal disease

The Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010

You are here:

2010 No. 659

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/659/made

Duty to notify suspected disease, infection or contamination in dead persons

3.—(1) A registered medical practitioner (R) must notify the proper officer of the relevant local authority where R has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person (P) whom R is attending has died whilst—

(a)infected with a notifiable disease;

(b)infected with a disease which, in the view of R, presents or could present, or presented or could have presented (whilst P was alive), significant harm to human health; or

(c)contaminated in a manner which, in the view of R, presents or could present, or presented or could have presented (whilst P was alive), significant harm to human health.

(2) The notification must include the following information insofar as it is known to R—

(a)P’s name, date of birth and sex;

(b)P’s date of death;

(c)P’s home address including postcode;

(d)P’s place of residence at time of death (if different from home address);

(e)P’s NHS number;

(f)P’s occupation at time of death (if R considers it relevant);

(g)the name, address and postcode of P’s place of work or education at the time of death (if R considers it relevant);

(h)P’s relevant overseas travel history;

(i)P’s ethnicity;

(j)the disease or infection which P had or is suspected of having had or the nature of P’s contamination or suspected contamination;

(k)the date of onset of P’s symptoms;

(l)the date of R’s diagnosis; and

(m)R’s name, address and telephone number.

(3) The notification must be provided in writing within 3 days beginning with the day on which R forms a suspicion under paragraph (1).

(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (3), if R considers that the case is urgent, notification must be provided orally as soon as reasonably practicable.

(5) In determining whether the case is urgent, R must have regard to—

(a)the nature of the suspected disease, infection or contamination;

(b)the ease of spread of that disease, infection or contamination;

(c)the ways in which the spread of the disease, infection or contamination can be prevented or controlled; and

(d)P’s circumstances (including age, sex and occupation).

(6) This regulation does not apply where R reasonably believes that the proper officer of the relevant local authority has already been notified with regard to P and the suspected disease, infection or contamination by another registered medical practitioner in accordance with this regulation or regulation 2(1).

(7) In this regulation—

“notifiable disease” has the same meaning it has in regulation 2; and

“relevant local authority” means the local authority within whose area R attended P on the occasion of forming a suspicion under paragraph (1).

Duty to provide information to the Health Protection Agency

5.—(1) This regulation applies where a notification has been made by the operator of a diagnostic laboratory to the Health Protection Agency under regulation 4.

(2) The Health Protection Agency may request that the person (R) who solicited the laboratory test which identified the causative agent to which the notification relates, provide to it the information listed at regulation 4(2) insofar as that information was not included in the notification.

(3) R must provide the information requested under paragraph (2) insofar as it is known to R.

(4) The information must be provided in writing within 3 days beginning with the day on which the request is made.

(5) Without prejudice to paragraph (4), if the Health Protection Agency considers the case to be urgent and informs R of this fact when making the request, the information must be provided orally as soon as reasonably practicable.

(6) In determining whether the case is urgent, the Health Protection Agency must have regard to—

(a)the nature of the causative agent to which the notification relates;

(b)the nature of the disease which the causative agent causes;

(c)the ease of spread of the causative agent;

(d)the ways in which the spread of the causative agent can be prevented or controlled; and

(e)where known, the circumstances of the person from whom the sample was taken (including age, sex and occupation).

Duty on the relevant local authority to disclose notification to others

6.—(1) This regulation applies where the proper officer of a local authority has received a notification under regulation 2 or 3.

(2) The proper officer of the local authority must disclose the fact of the notification and its contents to—

(a)the Health Protection Agency;

(b)the proper officer of the local authority in whose area P usually resides (if different); and

(c)the proper officer of the port health authority or local authority in whose district or area a ship, hovercraft, aircraft or international train is or was situated from which P has disembarked (if known to the disclosing proper officer and if that officer considers disclosure appropriate).

(3) The disclosure must be made in writing within 3 days beginning with the day that the proper officer receives the notification.

(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (3), if the disclosing proper officer considers that the case is urgent, disclosure must be made orally as soon as reasonably practicable.

(5) In determining whether a case is urgent, the disclosing proper officer must have regard to—

(a)the nature of the disease, infection or contamination or the suspected disease, infection or contamination notified;

(b)the ease of spread of the disease, infection or contamination;

(c)the ways in which the spread of the disease, infection or contamination can be prevented or controlled; and

(d)where known, the patient’s circumstances (including age, sex and occupation).

Duty to notify causative agents found in human samples

4.—(1) The operator of a diagnostic laboratory must notify the Health Protection Agency(6) in accordance with this regulation where the diagnostic laboratory identifies a causative agent in a human sample.

(2) The notification must include the following information insofar as it is known to the operator of the diagnostic laboratory—

(a)name and address of the diagnostic laboratory;

(b)details of the causative agent identified;

(c)date of the sample;

(d)nature of the sample;

(e)name of person (P) from whom the sample was taken;

(f)P’s date of birth and sex;

(g)P’s current home address including postcode;

(h)P’s current residence (if not home address);

(i)P’s ethnicity;

(j)P’s NHS number; and

(k)the name, address and organisation of the person who solicited the test which identified the causative agent.

(3) The notification must be provided in writing within 7 days beginning with the day on which the causative agent is identified.

(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (3), if the operator of the diagnostic laboratory considers that the case is urgent, the notification must be provided orally as soon as reasonably practicable.

(5) In determining whether the case is urgent, the operator of the diagnostic laboratory must have regard to —

(a)the nature of the causative agent;

(b)the nature of the disease which the causative agent causes;

(c)the ease of spread of the causative agent;

(d)the ways in which the spread of the causative agent can be prevented or controlled; and

(e)where known, P’s circumstances (including age, sex and occupation).

(6) This regulation does not apply where the operator of the diagnostic laboratory reasonably believes that the Health Protection Agency has already been notified in accordance with this regulation by the operator of another diagnostic laboratory in relation to the same causative agent being found in a sample from the same person.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a diagnostic laboratory identifies a causative agent where—

(a)the diagnostic laboratory identifies the causative agent; or

(b)the causative agent is identified by another laboratory under an arrangement made with that diagnostic laboratory.

(8) Where paragraph (7)(b) applies, the day on which the causative agent is identified for the purposes of paragraph (3), is the day on which the diagnostic laboratory became aware of the identification by the other laboratory.

(9) It is an offence for the operator of a diagnostic laboratory to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with this regulation.👈👈👈

(10) Any person who commits an offence under this regulation is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.👈👈👈

(11) In this regulation—

“causative agent” means—

(a)

a causative agent listed in Schedule 2, or

(b)

evidence of an infection caused by such an agent;

“diagnostic laboratory” means an institution (or facility within an institution) which is equipped with apparatus and reagents for the performance of diagnostic tests for human infections;

“director of a diagnostic laboratory” means—

(a)

the clinical microbiologist, consultant pathologist or other registered medical practitioner or other person in charge of a diagnostic laboratory, or

(b)

any other person working in the diagnostic laboratory to whom the function of making a notification under this regulation has been delegated by the person mentioned in paragraph (a); and

“operator of a diagnostic laboratory” means the corporate body that operates the diagnostic laboratory or, if there is no such body, the director of the diagnostic laboratory.

Duty to provide information to the Health Protection Agency

5.—(1) This regulation applies where a notification has been made by the operator of a diagnostic laboratory to the Health Protection Agency under regulation 4.

(3) R must provide the information requested under paragraph (2) insofar as it is known to R.

(4) The information must be provided in writing within 3 days beginning with the day on which the request is made.

(6) In determining whether the case is urgent, the Health Protection Agency must have regard to—

(a)the nature of the causative agent to which the notification relates;

(b)the nature of the disease which the causative agent causes;

(c)the ease of spread of the causative agent;

(d)the ways in which the spread of the causative agent can be prevented or controlled; and

(e)where known, the circumstances of the person from whom the sample was taken (including age, sex and occupation).

Person dying in hospital with notifiable disease

(1)If—

(a)a person dies in hospital while suffering from a notifiable disease, and

(b)the proper officer of the local authority for the district or a registered medical practitioner certifies that in his opinion it is desirable, in order to prevent the spread of infection, that the body should not be removed from the hospital except for the purpose of being taken direct to a mortuary or being forthwith buried or cremated,

it shall not be lawful for any person to remove the body from the hospital except for such a purpose.

(2)In any such case, when the body is removed for the purpose of burial or cremation from the hospital or any mortuary to which it has been taken, it shall forthwith be taken direct to some place of burial or crematorium and there buried or cremated.

(3)A person who contravenes any provision of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.👈👈👈

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/part/II/crossheading/death-of-person-suffering-from-notifiable-disease/enacted

Isolation of body of person dying with notifiable disease

Every person having the charge or control of premises in which is lying the body of a person who has died while suffering from a notifiable disease shall take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to prevent persons coming unnecessarily into contact with, or proximity to, the body, and if he fails to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.👈👈👈

#WakeUp

😈💩👎

AND THIS

P.S.A on Vaccines & HCID's

by me Darren Law

A.K.A The Hidden.

#wakeup
😈💩👎

repeat after me,

"There Is No Virus",

"you cannot catch what doesn't exist",

just the same as you cant cure or treat it

because it's non existent

which is made even more obvious by this utter garbage piece of fear based mind and people control propaganda below

the breakdown and the facts follow

1. any vaccine works the same way they infect you with a small sample of the mrna from the virus they are allegedly trying to protect you from getting infected with, even though by taking a vaccine in all realty is really helping the spreading of the virus and not protecting you or anyone else from catching it as its just a lie to propagate profits and control over you and the rest of the world by fear

2.the "vaccine" wont reduce your chance's of "catching" it because they are already at zero because even by their own standards is a non HCID (non high consequence infectious disease). and you have more chance of catching "monkey pox" which was a total of 2,924 suspected
cases (141 actual deaths world wide) had been reported thus far in 2020. see chart added bellow for full listings of hcid's and the number of actually confirmed global cases and deaths of each HCID, then consider the fact that the uk and its 4nehg and phe (4 nations England health group and public health England) which manage the uks NHS ad other health services in the UK, wales, Scotland and Ireland don't even consider it to be as lethal or prevalent as the lowest rated hcid category diseases, which is 4 death globally attributed to Ebola virus disease and 1 of those was in a lab in the uk, and that's out of 7.8 Billion people globally and that works out to 1 death for every one billion nine hundred fifty million

people on the planet and you have even less chance than that of catching the "Rona", and some of the other diseases in the hcid listings haven't even been spotted since the early part of the 1900's and they're still ranked higher than covid-19 so you have pretty much zero percent of ever catching it or knowing anyone that has, even if it was real, which it isn't #Fact

3. they say they "don't know if it will stop you from catching or passing on the virus", so then technically its not even a vaccine because a vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired "immunity" to a particular infectious disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism or Nano particle that causes a immune system reaction to the viral vector and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins hence its still the virus your trying to protect from, which makes its a unethical and unrealistic and a unneeded gamble with your life and risking the ivies of those closest to you an a criminal act by endangering the lives of yourself and others around you, and isn't they're mantra, you have to take it because its for your safety and the safety of others which is a direct contraction of what it actually is #FACT

4. if the Harmacuiticle "Vaccine" worked you wouldn't need to follow the social distancing rules or guidelines that are not law or use a mask. #Fact

5. if you are stupid enough to fall for the fear based lies that they the people who are making and selling the vaccines tell you, then you deserve the Darwin award for sure and its your own fault for believing their lies which is a very sad #FACT.

so the best advice i can give you for your safety and the ones you love is this, and i stress do not, and i repeat,,,, DO NOT TAKE THE "VACCINE" as it will only harm you and those around you and spared the disease you think you are being protected from, and that's a scientific #FACT

to put it into context here is the status of Covid-19 according to the uk government from the 19th of march when they quietly swept it under the rug, so they could use it as an excuse to bring you to your knee's and cause the destruction of your lives your family and your country, your economy and ultimately yours and my world #Fact

Status of COVID-19

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.

The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.

The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.

Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the updated national infection and prevention (IPC) guidance for COVID-19, which supersedes all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes instructions about different personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical scenarios.

Definition of HCID

In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:

acute infectious disease

typically has a high case-fatality rate

may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment

often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly

ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings

requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely

Classification of HCIDs

HCIDs are further divided into contact and airborne groups:

contact HCIDs are usually spread by direct contact with an infected patient or infected fluids, tissues and other materials, or by indirect contact with contaminated materials and fomites

airborne HCIDs are spread by respiratory droplets or aerosol transmission, in addition to contact routes of transmission

List of high consequence infectious diseases

A list of HCIDs has been agreed by a joint Public Health England (PHE) and NHS England HCID Programme:

Contact HCID Airborne HCID

Argentine haemorrhagic fever (Junin virus) Andes virus infection (hantavirus)

Bolivian haemorrhagic fever (Machupo virus) Avian influenza A H7N9 and H5N1

Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) Avian influenza A H5N6 and H7N7

Ebola virus disease (EVD) Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)

Lassa fever Monkeypox

Lujo virus disease Nipah virus infection

Marburg virus disease (MVD) Pneumonic plague (Yersinia pestis)

Severe fever with thrombocytopaenia syndrome (SFTS) Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)*

*No cases reported since 2004, but SARS remains a notifiable disease under the International Health Regulations (2005), hence its inclusion here

**Human to human transmission has not been described to date for avian influenza A(H5N6). Human to human transmission has been described for avian influenza A(H5N1), although this was not apparent until more than 30 human cases had been reported. Both A(H5N6) and A(H5N1) often cause severe illness and fatalities. Therefore, A(H5N6) has been included in the airborne HCID list despite not meeting all of the HCID criteria.

The list of HCIDs will be kept under review and updated by PHE if new HCIDs emerge that are of relevance to the UK.

HCIDs in the UK

HCIDs, including viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs), are rare in the UK. When cases do occur, they tend to be sporadic and are typically associated with recent travel to an area where the infection is known to be endemic or where an outbreak is occurring. None of the HCIDs listed above are endemic in the UK, and the known animal reservoirs are not found in the UK.

As of February 2020, 2019, the UK has experience of managing confirmed cases of Lassa fever, EVD, CCHF, MERS and monkeypox. The vast majority of these patients acquired their infections overseas, but rare incidents of secondary transmission of MERS and monkeypox have occurred in the UK.

the HCID chart listing follows

drink deeply from the cup of truth until you are full

Global high consequence

infectious disease events

Monthly update

July 2020

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April - June 2020 update

About Public Health England

Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing,

and reduce health inequalities. We do this through world-leading science, research,

knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public

health services. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social

Care, and a distinct delivery organisation with operational autonomy. We provide

government, local government, the NHS, Parliament, industry and the public with

evidence-based professional, scientific and delivery expertise and support.

Public Health England

Wellington House

133-155 Waterloo Road

London SE1 8UG

Tel: 020 7654 8000

www.gov.uk/phe

Twitter: @PHE_uk

Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland

Prepared by: Emerging Infections and Zoonoses Section, PHE

For queries relating to this document, please contact: epiintel@phe.gov.uk

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or

medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence,

visit OGL. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need

to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Published August 2020

PHE Publications PHE supports the UN

gateway number: GW-1534 Sustainable Development Goals

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Introduction

This report provides detailed updates on known high consequence infectious disease

(HCID) events around the world.

This report details all the HCID pathogens that are covered during epidemic intelligence

activities. The report is divided into 2 sections. The first contains contact and airborne

HCIDs that have been specified for the HCID Programme by NHS England. The

second section contains additional HCIDs that are important for situational awareness.

Each section consists of 2 tables of known pathogens and includes descriptions of

recent events. A third table will be included in the second section when undiagnosed

disease events occur that could be interpreted as potential HCIDs.

Likelihood assessment

Included for each disease is a ‘likelihood assessment’; the likelihood of a case

occurring in the UK, based on past UK experience and the global occurrence of travelassociated cases. There are 3 categories currently – LOW, VERY LOW and

EXCEPTIONALLY LOW. This assessment is as of January 2019.

When considering clinical history, it is important to remember that cases can and do

occur outside of the usual distribution area. It is not possible to assess accurately the

risk of cases presenting to healthcare providers in England, but taken together it is

inevitable that occasional imported cases will be seen.

Events found during routine scanning activities that occur in endemic areas will briefly

be noted in the report. Active surveillance, other than daily epidemic intelligence

activities, of events in endemic areas will not be conducted (for example, actively

searching government websites or other sources for data on case numbers).

The target audience for this report is any healthcare professional who may be involved

in HCID identification.

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April - June 2020 update

Section 1. Incidents of significance of primary HCIDs

Notable event: Ebola virus disease outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Contact HCIDs

Infectious disease Geographical risk areas Source(s) and route of

infection:

UK experience to

date

Likelihood assessment

Crimean-Congo

haemorrhagic fever

(CCHF)

Endemic in Central and

Eastern Europe, Central

Asia, the Middle East,

East and West Africa.

First locally acquired case

in Spain 2016

(Risk Assessment).

• bite from or crushing of

an infected tick

• contact with blood or

tissues from infected

livestock

• contact with infected

patients, their blood or

body fluids

Two confirmed

cases (exAfghanistan 2012;

ex-Bulgaria 2014).

LOW – Rarely reported

in travellers (23 cases

in world literature).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• Georgia confirmed 1 additional case for 2020, bringing the overall tally for 2020 to 11

• Russia’s Stavropol region reported 8 cases in July, by mid-July 30 cases had been reported for

2020. The Rostov region reported an overall total of 14 cases for 2020 in July.For both regions

incidences were lower than those of 2019.

Ebola virus disease

Sporadic outbreaks in

Western, Central and

Eastern Africa.

• contact/consumption of

infected animal tissue

(such as, bushmeat)

• contact with infected

human blood or body

fluids

Four confirmed

cases (1 labacquired in UK in

1976; 3 HCWs

associated with

West African

VERY LOW – Other

than during the West

Africa outbreak,

exported cases are

extremely rare.

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

epidemic 2014 to

2015).

DRC - outbreak in Equateur province

On 1 June 2020, a new outbreak was declared in Équateur province, on the other side of the now declared

over 10th outbreak, when a small cluster of cases was reported in the city of Mbandaka. This province was

previously affected by EVD in the summer of 2018. In July the new outbreak continued to see rising

numbers of confirmed cases and geographical spread to new health areas, with 27 health areas in eight

health zones affected. By end of July a total of 73 cases (69 confirmed and four probable) including 31

deaths (42.5% CFR) had been reported, with three health workers having been affected. The number of

health areas that have reported at least one confirmed or probable case of EVD since the start of this

outbreak has risen to 27, in eight of the 18 health zones in the province. Challenges encountered were

inadequate resources for alert investigations in Mbandaka, and case management in rural and hard-toreach areas continue. According to the WHO, the constant presence of confirmed cases in the community

was of particular concern, along with suspected cases who were not being isolated or delays in isolation.

Additionally, there are insufficient funds available to cover the response required. Although all pillars of

response are active in the affected areas, further actions are required to limit spread to other areas

(including spread to neighbouring countries Republic of Congo and Central African Republic), along with

intense community engagement with community leaders to prevent resistance to response activities and

ensure that communities become fully engaged in response activities.

Lassa fever

Endemic in sub-Saharan

West Africa

• contact with excreta, or

materials contaminated

with excreta of infected

rodent

• inhalation of aerosols of

excreta of infected

rodent

• contact with infected

human blood or body

fluids

Fourteen cases

since 1971, all exWest Africa.

LOW – Overall it is the

most common imported

VHF but still rare (global

total 35 reported since

1969).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

• Nigeria:after the peak in cases January to March, the decreasing trend observed from April to

June, continues with only 14 confirmed cases in Ondo state mostly in July. The total number of

confirmed cases to 28 June 2020 was 1,054.

• Guinea reported one case (with one death) mid-July

Marburg virus

disease

Sporadic outbreaks in

Central and Eastern

Africa

• contact with infected

blood or body fluids

No known cases in

UK.

VERY LOW – 5 travelrelated cases in the

world literature.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no cases reported since November 2017

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Airborne HCIDs

Infectious disease Geographical risk areas Source(s) and route of

infection:

UK experience to date Likelihood assessment

Influenza A(H7N9)

virus (Asian

lineage)

All human infections

acquired in China.

• close contact with

infected birds or their

environments

• close contact with

infected humans (no

sustained human-tohuman transmission)

No known cases in

UK.

VERY LOW (PHE Risk

Assessment).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected human cases of H7N9 were reported in July

Influenza A(H5N1)

virus

Human cases

predominantly in SE Asia,

but also Egypt, Iraq,

Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria.

Highly pathogenic H5N1 in

birds much more

widespread, including UK.

• close contact with

infected birds or their

environments

• close contact with

infected humans (no

sustained human-tohuman transmission)

No known cases in

UK.

VERY LOW (PHE Risk

Assessment).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected human cases of H5N1 were reported in July

Middle East

respiratory

syndrome (MERS)

The Arabian Peninsula –

Yemen, Qatar, Oman,

Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi

Arabia and United Arab

Emirates

• airborne particles

• direct contact with

contaminated

environment

• direct contact with

camels

Five cases in total; 3

imported cases (2012,

2013 and 2018); 2

secondary cases in

close family members

of 2nd case; 3 deaths

VERY LOW (PHE Risk

Assessment).

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• As of 2 July, 57 cases (with 20 deaths) have been reported in Saudi Arabia, 2 in the United Arab

Emirates and 1 in Qatar in 2020, as reported by ECDC in July. For awareness, regular reporting

of MERS cases seems to have stalled, especially for Saudi Arabia, since the start of the COVID19 pandemic.

Monkeypox virus

West and Central Africa • close contact with

infected animal or

human

• indirect contact with

contaminated material,

such as bed linen

Three cases in total; 2

imported (Sept 2018)

and 1 nosocomial

transmission.

VERY LOW – Reported

outside Africa for the

first time in 2018 (2 in

UK and 1 in Israel).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• DRC reported 334 suspected cases including 10 deaths in July. A total of 2,924 suspected

cases (108 deaths) had been reported thus far in 2020. Compared to the same period in 2019,

although the number of cases is slightly lower (3,015 cases by August 2019), the number of

deaths is significantly higher in 2020 (64 deaths by August 2019). The reason for the increased

case fatality rate is unknown at this stage.

• Nigeria reported 3 suspected case up to 26th of July

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Nipah virus

Outbreaks in Bangladesh

and India; SE Asia at risk.

• direct or indirect

exposure to infected

bats; consumption of

contaminated raw date

palm sap

• close contact with

infected pigs or

humans

No known cases in

UK.

EXCEPTIONALLY LOW

– No travel-related

infections in the

literature.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected cases reported in July

Pneumonic plague

(Yersinia pestis)

Predominantly subSaharan Africa but also

Asia, North Africa, South

America, Western USA

• flea bites

• close contact with

infected animals

• contact with human

cases of pneumonic

plague

Last outbreak in UK

was in 1918.

VERY LOW - Rarely

reported in travellers.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• DRC’s Ituri province is seeing an increase in plague cases in a single health zone. From midJune to mid-July 45 cases including 9 deaths were reported. Of these, two showed signs of

septicemic plague; all the other cases were diagnosed as having bubonic plague. According to

the available information, it is likely that all three types of plague clinical presentation (bubonic,

septicemic and pneumonic) are present. Overall, 75 cases (17 deaths) were reported for 2020.

Severe acute

respiratory

syndrome (SARS)

Currently none; 2

outbreaks originating from

China 2002 and 2004.

• airborne particles

• direct contact with

contaminated

environment

Four cases related to

2002 outbreak.

EXCEPTIONALLY LOW

– Not reported since

2004.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Section 2. Incidents of significance of additional HCIDs

Contact HCIDs

Infectious disease Geographical risk areas Source(s) and route of

infection:

UK experience to date Likelihood assessment

Argentine

haemorrhagic fever

(Junin virus)

Argentina (central).

Limited to the provinces of

Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Santa

Fe, Entre Rios and La Pampa.

• direct contact with

infected rodents

• inhalation of

infectious rodent

fluids and excreta

• person-to-person

transmission has

been documented

No known cases in

UK.

EXCEPTIONALLY

LOW – Travel-related

cases have never

been reported.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected cases were reported in July

Bolivian

haemorrhagic fever

(Machupo virus)

Bolivia – limited to the

Department of Beni,

municipalities of the provinces

Iténez (Magdalena, Baures

and Huacaraje) and Mamoré

(Puerto Siles, San Joaquín

and San Ramón)

• direct contact with

infected rodents

• inhalation of

infectious rodent

fluids and excreta

• person-to-person

transmission has

been documented

No known cases in

UK.

EXCEPTIONALLY

LOW – Travel-related

cases have never

been reported.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected cases were reported in July

• no confirmed or suspected human cases reported since 2004

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Lujo virus disease

Single case acquired in

Zambia lead to a cluster in

South Africa in 2008.

• presumed rodent

contact (excreta, or

materials

contaminated with

excreta of infected

rodent)

• person-to-person via

body fluids

No known cases in

UK.

EXCEPTIONALLY

LOW – a single travel

related case; not

reported anywhere

since 2008.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected human cases reported since 2008

Severe fever with

thrombocytopenia

syndrome (SFTS)

Mainly reported from China

(southeastern), Japan and

Korea; first ever cases

reported in Vietnam and

Taiwan in 2019.

• presumed to be tick

exposure

• person-to-person

transmission

described in

household and

hospital contacts, via

contact with

blood/bloodstained

body fluids

No known cases in

UK.

EXCEPTIONALLY

LOW – Not known to

have occurred in

travellers.

Recent cases/outbreak:

• China: media reports of 60 hopitalised cases and 7 deaths for 2020

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Airborne HCIDs

Infectious disease Geographical risk areas Source(s) and route of

infection:

UK experience to date Likelihood assessment

Andes virus

(Hantavirus)

Chile and southern

Argentina.

• rodent contact

(excreta, or materials

contaminated with

excreta of infected

rodent

• person-to-person

transmission described

in household and

hospital contacts

No known cases in

UK.

VERY LOW – Rare

cases in travellers have

been reported.

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected cases were reported in July

Influenza A(H5N6)

virus

Mostly China

(March 2017 new strain in

Greece, and subsequently

found in Western Europe).

• close contact with

infected birds or their

environments

No known cases. VERY LOW – Not

known to have occurred

in travellers (PHE risk

assessment).

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected human cases of H5N6 were reported in July

Influenza A(H7N7)

virus

Sporadic occurrence

including Europe and UK.

• close contact with

infected birds or their

environments

• close contact with

infected humans (no

sustained human-tohuman transmission)

No known cases. VERY LOW – Human

cases are rare, and

severe disease even

rarer.

Global high consequence infectious disease events: April – June 2020 update

Recent cases/outbreaks:

• no confirmed or suspected human cases of H7N7 were reported in July

#YoureWelcome

You may be gone,

but you will never be forgotten

bound with love

forever in the loop

The Hidden

Facts about me,,,,,, i have been blogging for over ten years im followed by many academic societies and institution's from universities to the military and have my articles published in many sites globally and even radio stations around the planet share my posts im a internationally recognized brand in 191 countries i have personally given you my fellow truther's and human beings all of my time and effort in a bid to save us all from total and utter annihilation at the hands of the NWO im a psychic intuitive, writer publisher artist dj celebrity blogger and many other achievements too many to list, i love you all i always have and will no matter what the cost,, i have and always will be your friend #D

Translate

6 Sept 2021

Winter vaccine schedule for Disabled people unclear

Koch's postulates 2

Labels

Get new posts by email: