Connect with us

Trending

Can’t Ascertain Oxygen Shortage As Cause Of Death At Jaipur Golden Hospital: Delhi Government

Published

on

Can’t Ascertain Oxygen Shortage As Cause Of Death At Jaipur Golden Hospital: Delhi Government


Can’t Ascertain Oxygen Shortage As Cause Of Death At Jaipur Golden Hospital: Delhi Government

COVID-19 Delhi: 21 Covid patients had died at the Jaipur Golden Hospital in Delhi last month

New Delhi:

The Delhi government has informed the Delhi High Court that oxygen shortage as the cause of death of 21 COVID-19 patients at Jaipur Golden Hospital in the city could not be ascertained by an expert committee which probed the matter.

The Delhi government in its report to the high court referred to the findings of the expert committee which said, In view of natural virulent course of the disease and lack of any evidence suggestive of oxygen shortage in the case records, the committee was of the opinion that shortage of oxygen as the cause of death could not be ascertained.

“Many of the reported patients had one or multiple co-morbidity like heart disease, diabetes, DM, hypothyroidism and hypertension. All these patients were receiving some form of oxygen therapy and / or ventilator support during the hospital stay,” the committee said in its report.

In pursuance to the order of a bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, the Delhi government had directed hospitals and nursing homes to send details of patients whose death occurred due to shortage of oxygen.

The 4-member committee was constituted by the government headed by Naresh Kumar, professor (medicine), MAMC and LNH to examine the case sheets of all such patients and to determine whether the cause of death was due to shortage of oxygen.

The committee found that only Jaipur Golden Hospital has claimed that the reported deaths were due to deficiency of oxygen, the Delhi government said.

The hospital has sent the information pertaining to the 21 such patients whose deaths occurred in their hospital on April 23 and 24, in response to the mail from DGHS, it said.

After examining the records, the committee observed that all the reported patients were suffering from COVID-19 infection and the deaths have occurred in over seven hours of time period and almost all of them were already very sick and critical either from the time of admission or during the course of hospital stay even prior to the evening of April 23.

It added that as per case records, all patients were given supplemental oxygen till resuscitation or death and that there was no mention of shortage of oxygen in any of the case sheets.

The reason of death in all 21 cases has been uniformly mentioned as respiratory failure’ in the proforma submitted by the hospital. However, the cause of death recorded in case sheets were different from the cause mentioned in the submitted proforma. There was no mention of oxygen shortage in either the submitted proforma or in the case sheets.

Shortage of drug was recorded in case sheet of one patient… However, shortage of oxygen, if any, was not recorded. In such situation where even drug unavailability was recorded, committee wonders why the shortage of life saving oxygen, if any, was not recorded, the committee report said.

According to the hospital’s medical director, DK Baluja, the reason behind the deaths of the critically-ill patients was a dip in the oxygen pressure.

Thereafter, the hospital’s counsel had also told the high court that they lost 21 patients due to shortage of oxygen and were still facing a deficit in supply of the gas.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)



Source link

Trending

Title sealed at OT: Manchester City crowned Premier League champions for third time in four years

Published

on

Title sealed at OT: Manchester City crowned Premier League champions for third time in four years



Manchester City clinched a third Premier League title in four years, as their arch rivals Manchester United slipped up at home against Leicester City on Tuesday.

United were the closest rivals to City but it was a matter of time for Pep Guardiola and Co. Leicester defeated a much-changed United side 2-1 for a crucial win in their top four bid.

(More to follow)

Premier League champions

Club Wins Winning years
Manchester United 13 1992–93, 1993–94, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2010–11, 2012–13
Chelsea 5 2004–05, 2005–06, 2009–10, 2014–15, 2016–17
Manchester City 5 2011–12, 2013–14, 2017–18, 2018–19, 2020-21
Arsenal 3 1997–98, 2001–02, 2003–04
Blackburn Rovers 1 1994–95
Leicester City 1 2015–16
Liverpool 1 2019–20

City hosted Thomas Tuchel’s side at the Etihad at 1630 GMT just three weeks before they meet again in European club football’s showpiece match, scheduled to be played in Istanbul on May 29. But a defeat in that match meant City had to wait for their celebrations.

City swept aside Paris Saint-Germain in the semi-finals of the Champions League to give Guardiola the opportunity to win the European crown for the third time as a manager after he won it twice with Barcelona in 2009 and 2011.

But he had insisted the Champions League final and the meeting in the Premier League on Saturday were not connected.

City moved to the brink of the title with victory over Crystal Palace last weekend. They could have been crowned champions on Sunday last week had second-placed Manchester United lost to Liverpool but that game was postponed after a protest by fans against United’s American owners.

Reaching the Champions League final for the first time is a huge moment in City’s history but their star manager had said retaining the Premier League after Liverpool interrupted his side’s title series last season was his prime focus.

“Always I’ve said the Premier League is the most important title,” he had said before the match against Chelsea.

“Financially for the club, qualification for the Champions League is the most important title, maybe, but there is no doubt what is the most important thing.

“Of course the Champions League is so special, it’s nice, but this one means consistency and many things.”

City beat Tottenham with an Aymeric Laporte header to lift the League Cup last month but Chelsea ended their hopes of an unprecedented quadruple by winning 1-0 in the FA Cup semi-final at Wembley.

List of Premier League champions

Year Champions Winning manager
1992–93 Manchester United   Alex Ferguson
1993–94 Manchester United   Alex Ferguson
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers   Kenny Dalglish
1995–96 Manchester United   Alex Ferguson
1996–97 Manchester United   Alex Ferguson
1997–98 Arsenal   Arsène Wenger
1998–99 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
1999–2000 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2000–01 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2001–02 Arsenal  Arsène Wenger
2002–03 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2003–04 Arsenal  Arsène Wenger
2004–05 Chelsea  José Mourinho
2005–06 Chelsea  José Mourinho
2006–07 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2007–08 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2008–09 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2009–10 Chelsea  Carlo Ancelotti
2010–11 Manchester United  Alex Ferguson
2011–12 Manchester City  Roberto Mancini
2012–13 Manchester United   Alex Ferguson
2013–14 Manchester City  Manuel Pellegrini
2014–15 Chelsea  José Mourinho
2015–16 Leicester City  Claudio Ranieri
2016–17 Chelsea  Antonio Conte
2017–18 Manchester City  Pep Guardiola
2018–19 Manchester City   Pep Guardiola
2019–20 Liverpool   Jürgen Klopp
2020-21 Manchester City Pep Guardiola

With AFP inputs





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Vaccines Effective Against Indian Variant Of COVID-19: WHO

Published

on

Vaccines Effective Against Indian Variant Of COVID-19: WHO


Vaccines Effective Against Indian Variant Of COVID-19: WHO

WHO said that the vaccines “continue to be effective” against the B.1.617 variant.

New Delhi:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Tuesday said that the vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics “continue to be effective” against the B.1.617 variant of COVID-19.

“Based on what WHO knows so far as per discussions with experts globally, vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics continue to be effective against B.1.617 variant (of COVID-19), which WHO has classified as a variant of concern,” said WHO Representative to India Dr Roderico H Ofrin.

The variant first identified in India has been classified as a variant of global concern, with some preliminary studies showing that it spreads more easily, a senior WHO official informed on Monday.

The B.1.617 of the Covid-19 is the fourth variant to be designated as one of global concern that requires more tracking and analysis. The three others strains were first detected in the United Kingdom, South Africa and Brazil.

“B1617 virus variant that was first identified in India has been classified as a variant of interest by WHO,” said Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, Technical lead COVID-19 at the WHO. She added that the WHO needs much more information about this B1617 variant and all of the sub-lineages.

In an exclusive interview to ANI, World Health Organisation (WHO) Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan on Monday (local time) said studies were underway in India to examine the variant’s transmissibility, the severity of the disease it causes and the response of antibodies in people who have been vaccinated.

The WHO scientist called for more genome sequencing in India to get a full picture of what is going on in different parts of the country while saying that it should be hand-in-hand with clinical epidemiological studies.

“Sequencing does not give you the full picture. You do not know whether it is more transmissible, whether it causes more severe disease or what impact it has on your diagnostics,” she said



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

A Belgian farmer accidentally annexed France by moving a rock. What does it say about borders?

Published

on

A Belgian farmer accidentally annexed France by moving a rock. What does it say about borders?


This week, a farmer in the Belgian town of Erquelinnes caused an international ruckus when he moved a stone standing in his tractor’s path.

This stone marked the boundary between Belgium and France. By moving it 2.29 metres, he expanded Belgium’s territory.

We must assume he had driven around it before – the stone was placed on this site in 1819, as part of the proceedings that established the Franco-Belgian border in 1820 after Napoleon’s defeat.

For the farmer, it stood in the way of his tractor. For the governments of France and Belgium, it was an active international border.

This story suggests a fragility to borders that contradicts their apparent solidity in an atlas or on Google Maps. Human history is, however, full of arguments about where the edges of property lie.

‘Beating the bounds’

Nations establish their borders through treaties. Rivers are sometimes relied on to set boundaries, but even here tensions rise when there are disputes about interpretation. Is the boundary on the river banks, the deepest part of the river, or the very centre of the flow?

The fact these measurements can even be calculated is remarkable. Expecting high levels of accuracy in a map is a recent development.

The first attempts at consistent accuracy were in 19th century military maps, such as Britain’s Ordnance Survey.

Later development saw the topographical charts used by bushwalkers and mountain climbers. But only with the arrival of digital mapping did it became normal to pin-point our location on a map in everyday situations.

An early Ordnance Survey sheet, showing the United Kingdom’s County of Kent and part of the County of Essex. Photo credit: William Mudge, 1801, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection: 8534002

The precise location of boundaries was usually part of local knowledge, kept and maintained by members of the community. For centuries a practice known as “beating the bounds” was followed in parts of Great Britain, Hungary, Germany and the United States.

Members of the parish or community would walk around the edge of their lands every few years, perhaps singing or performing specific actions to help the route stick in the participants’ minds. By including new generations each time, the knowledge was passed through the community and remained active.

Beating the bounds was a tradition of spatial knowledge that carried weight – it was accepted as evidence in cases of disputed boundaries. It was also part of a larger tradition, maintaining borders through physical symbolism, whether for good or bad.

Britain has a long history of using enclosure (the fencing or hedging of land) as a means to excluding the poor from accessing common resources. In contrast, in colonial Australia, the first fences were built to protect essential garden crops from scavenging livestock.

Sometimes the importance of the border was demonstrated with an elaborate marker. The Franco-Belgian stone was carved with a date and compass points, representing not only a boundary but also the end of Napoleon’s destructive wars.

Likewise, the boundary markers of Sydney from the same period included the name of the Governor, Richard Bourke.

Manipulation and incompetence

Formality was not always required. At a local level in the Australian colonies, boundaries were often marked by painting, slashing or burning a mark into a tree. These were easy to ignore and frustrated landholders placed public notices in the newspapers cautioning against trespassing. People constantly took timber from private properties, or grazed their livestock without hesitation wherever was convenient to them.

Landholders included descriptions of their properties – detailing landmarks and neighbouring properties – in their notices, so there could be no doubt about which land was taken.

But these descriptions formed a circular argument: the potential trespasser needed to know who held each property in order to establish whose property they were about to enter. How effective they were at actually preventing trespass remains unclear.

Rivers were an obvious boundary marker, although European settlers quickly learned how to manipulate them to suit their own needs. By quietly blocking a section of river with trees and other rubbish, they could divert its route to suit their own wishes. By the time the surveyor came to verify or reassess boundaries, the landholder had been using their stolen acres for several years.

Throughout the 19th century, Australian survey departments devoted huge resources to undoing the confusion created by manipulation and incompetence in earlier years.

Markers of time

When the Belgian farmer this week got fed up with going around the stone and decided to move it, he was participating in a time-honoured tradition of manipulating impermanent boundary markers. But if he was able to move it, then who is to say it had not been moved before?

Historic boundary markers like this one have a habit of being in technically the wrong place, even if they are in precisely the right place to commemorate a moment in time.

Perhaps that is where their true significance sits.

Imogen Wegman is a Lecturer in Humanities at the University of Tasmania.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending