thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Miley Cyrus Opens Up About Liam Hemsworth Divorce: 'There Was Too Much Conflict'

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Miley Cyrus has opened up on her divorce from Liam Hemsworth, saying “there was too much conflict” in their marriage.
The pair divorced in 2019, a year after tying the knot and almost a decade since their on-off relationship first began.
Advertisement
Miley has now spoken of how her and Liam’s home burning down in 2018′s California wildfires prior to their wedding contributed to the end of their marriage.
Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth KYLE GRILLOT via Getty Images
Appearing on Howard Stern’s SiriusXM radio show in the US, the Midnight Sky singer said: “You’re attracted to that heat, and me being an intense person and not wanting to sit with it and not wanting to go, you know, ‘What could be purposeful about this?’ I just clung to what I had left of that house, which was me and him.”
She continued: “And I really do and did love him very, very, very much and still do, always will.”
Miley added: “In trying to put that back together, instead of going, ‘Oh, nature kind of did something I couldn’t do for myself; it forced me to let go,’ I ran toward the fire, which is not abnormal, a lot of animals do this and end up dying, like, deers run into the forest.”
Advertisement
Speaking about the “conflict” in their marriage, Miley continued: “When I come home, I want to be anchored by someone. I don’t get off on drama or fighting.”
The couple split last year after a decade-long, on-off relationship Axelle/Bauer-Griffin via Getty Images
During the interview, the former Hannah Montana star also discussed the difficulties of staying sober amid the pressures brought by the pandemic.
She previously told how she stopped drinking alcohol after undergoing vocal cord surgery late last year.
“The hardest times have been in this pandemic,” she said. “I am always truthful. And a lot of people, their sobriety broke during this time. I was one of them. Luckily, I haven’t gone back to using any drugs, but I was drinking during the pandemic.”
Advertisement
Miley said she was not calling it a “relapse,” adding drinking had not “been my demon”.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Obama, Clinton and Bush Say They Will All Get Safe Covid-19 Vaccine, Maybe On TV

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media .
We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through @ @ @ @ @ similar technologies , to display personalised ads and content , for ad and content measurement @ @ @ @ @ development .
Your personal data that may be used • Information about your device and @ @ @ @ @ IP address • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps Find @ @ @ @ @ use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy .
To enable Verizon Media @ @ @ @ @ your personal data select ' I agree ' , or select 'Manage settings ' for @ @ @ @ @ your choices .
You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he planned to take a Covid-19 vaccine, possibly on television in an effort to encourage Americans to do the same, if officials said it was safe.
“I will be taking it, and I may take it on TV or have it filmed so people know that I trust this science,” Obama said in an interview on SiriusXM radio. “If Anthony Fauci tells me this vaccine is safe and can immunize you from getting Covid, absolutely I’ll take it.”
Advertisement
“What I don’t trust is getting Covid,” he added.
Obama joins former Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton in supporting an eventual Covid-19 vaccine deemed to be safe by public health officials. Bush’s chief of staff told CNN: “When the time is right, [Bush] wants to do what he can to help encourage his fellow citizens to get vaccinated.”
“First, the vaccines need to be deemed safe and administered to the priority populations,” the chief of staff, Freddy Ford, said. “Then, President Bush will get in line for his and will gladly do so on camera.”
Clinton’s press aide also told the outlet that the Democrat “will definitely take a vaccine as soon as available to him” and do so in a public setting.
Obama said he trusted Dr Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, “completely” and would use him as a touchstone for wisdom surrounding any vaccines. Fauci himself has said in recent days he had hope after several vaccine candidates — from Pfizer and Moderna — released “spectacular” results from large-scale trials. Pfizer applied last month and Moderna this week for emergency approval from the Food and Drug Administration, an encouraging sign for the wide rollout of a vaccine (the agency plans to convene an advisory panel on the Pfizer candidate on December 10 and could make a decision on the treatment shortly afterward).
Advertisement
Britain this week became the first Western country to approve the Pfizer vaccine, paving the way for mass inoculations.
But Obama’s comments this week come amid troubling news for the US More than 100,000 people were hospitalised with the virus and 200,000 others tested positive for Covid-19 on Wednesday, the first time the country had seen either figure during the course of the pandemic. The nation was also on track to hit a daily high for coronavirus deaths on Wednesday.
Dr Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned Americans that the coming months would, in his estimation, be “the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation.”
“I do think, unfortunately, before we see February, we could be close to 450,000 Americans who’ve died from this virus,” Redfield added in a bleak address.
More than 270,000 people have already died of Covid-19 in the US, more than any in other nation.
At the same time, public trust in a vaccine has seesawed in recent months. In a Gallup poll, 58% of Americans said they would get a Covid-19 vaccine, up from a low of 50% in September. But those surveys found 42% still said they would not get one, a significant hurdle in getting the US economy back to normal.
Advertisement
Obama addressed such concerns in his interview this week, pointing specifically to fears among communities of colour that have been disproportionately harmed by the coronavirus. Only 48% of non-white Americans said they planned to get a vaccine, and Obama pointed to longstanding distrust in government programs.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Trump Should Declare Martial Law And Redo The Election, Michael Flynn Suggests

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser who was pardoned by the president last week for lying during the Russia investigation, wants Trump to declare martial law and “temporarily suspend the Constitution” until a new election is held.
Flynn, who had been awaiting sentencing for lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts before Trump’s pardon, on Tuesday retweeted a news release from a right-wing Ohio group called We The People Convention asking the president to declare martial law so troops can supervise a do-over of the 2020 election.
Advertisement
Flynn tagged many conservative celebs in his post and added: “Freedom never kneels except for God.”
The news release cites “massive, planned, illegal election fraud” carried out by Democrats. Trump lost the election handily to President-elect Joe Biden and no widespread fraud has been found.
If the president doesn’t declare martial law, the statement retweeted by Flynn warns, “we will also have no other choice but to take matters into our own hands and defend our rights on our own.”
A retired Army general’s support for the military takeover of US government shocked many people on Twitter.
Advertisement
The Trumpists want a coup and martial law. https://t.co/W6FBeE6jCd — Eric Owens (@ericowensdc) December 2, 2020
I feel like the presidents recently pardoned former national security advisor calling for a military coup and martial law to overturn an election should be bigger news. — Tim Miller (@Timodc) December 2, 2020
So, now we have moved on the constitutional coup stage of right-wing madness. Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell have started talking about suspending the constitution (the one the right-wing has been pretending to love my whole life) and declaring martial law. They're not kidding. — Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) December 2, 2020
🚨 They finally "went there." Michael Flynn and his lawyer Sidney Powell endorsed calls for Trump to "declare limited Martial Law to temporarily suspend the Constitution... in order to have the military implement a national re-vote." That is the literal definition of a coup. pic.twitter.com/93OL7mPvcx — Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) December 2, 2020
Democratic representative Eric Swalwell of California wondered if elected Republicans would condemn the call for martial law.
Advertisement
Hey @HouseGOP & @SenateGOP: You've always said you opposed tyranny - and here it is. What will you say about it? https://t.co/JUArxMwZxB — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) December 2, 2020
Some people pointed out that Flynn’s suggestion could be considered sedition.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice defines as “sedition” one who, “with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or *other disturbance* against that authority”:https://t.co/YJWVM5lx27 https://t.co/MwZQgmXrgp — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 2, 2020
Mike Flynn argues that martial law is better than civil war, but seems unaware that sedition is worse than lying to the FBI. https://t.co/Jc0rtROORd — Christopher Orr (@OrrChris) December 2, 2020
Others called out the right wing’s hypocritical notions of personal freedom.
Conservatives: I WILL NOT WEAR A MASK BECAUSE IT IS A DIAPER THAT CANNOT HOLD MY REGULAR EXPLOSIONS OF MOUTH-FREEDOM AND YOU CAN’T MAKE ME BECAUSE MUH RIGHTS
Also conservatives: Suspend the constitution. Declare martial law. Overturn the election. Seriously. We’re serious. — Catherynne M. Valente (@catvalente) December 2, 2020
One person tried to see the bright side, saying the tweet shows it’s good Flynn didn’t last long as national security adviser.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--I'm A Celebrity: AJ Pritchard And Sir Mo Farah Are Next To Leave Camp In Double Elimination

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The pair became the seventh and eighth celebrities respectively to leave the castle on Wednesday evening.
Advertisement
After the result was announced, Olympic runner Sir Mo said he wanted to push himself during his time on the ITV reality show.
Sir Mo Farah and AJ Pritchard were voted out of the castle Kieron McCarron/ITV/Shutterstock
“I watched this show over the years and all I ever wanted to do was challenge myself, because I know I can run,” he said. “I enjoyed myself, really, amongst amazing people.”
Former Strictly Come Dancing professional AJ said he had made “friends for life” with his campmates.
He added: “We have highs, lows, and everybody helped everybody. There was no negativity.”
Earlier in the show, the pair took part in a trial named Game Of Groans, where they were tasked with remembering the positions of painted shields on a board as cockroaches, crickets, mealworms and maggots were dumped on to them.
Advertisement
They answered a total of three out of six questions correctly and earned three stars for the camp, which meant they had secured three meals.
The pair had taken part in the Game of Groans trial ITV/Shutterstock
When asked by hosts Ant and Dec which of their campmates they’d like to see crowned the very first King or Queen of the Castle, both Mo and AJ named Giovanna.
AJ said: “She’s just so positive and does so much for people. Behind the scenes, you never know if its shown, but definitely she’s supported so many people.”
Mo added: “She’s so wonderful and helpful.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Do Not Resuscitate Orders 'Used Without Consent During First Wave Of Coronavirus'

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Doctors may have made blanket decisions about “do not resuscitate orders” without the input of patients or their families during the first wave of the pandemic, the care watchdog has warned.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) said the number of complaints it had received about do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACR) orders jumped to 40 between March and September.
Advertisement
There were just nine similar complaints in the previous six months.
One carer said an on-call doctor had informed care home staff that if a resident were to catch Covid-19, a DNACPR order would automatically be put in place.
Another witness said some care homes and learning learning disability services had been told by GPs to place blanket orders on everyone in their care.
Early results of the CQC’s investigation found DNACPRs may have been used inappropriately when care services were under extreme pressure following misunderstanding of the guidance on their use.
Only 15% to 20% of those who undergo the highly invasive resuscitation procedure in hospital survive, with survival rates dropping to between 5% and 10% outside of a hospital setting.
Advertisement
Although it can cause punctured lungs, fractured ribs and severe bruising, failing to fully appraise a patient or their loved ones of their options is a breach of their human rights, the CQC warned.
CQC guidance states decisions on DNACPRs must never be dictated by blanket policies, must be free from discrimination, and not made on a clinician’s “subjective view of a person’s quality of life”.
Despite reminding care providers of their obligations, the CQC said it had received evidence from staff and patients’ families that DNACPR orders had been applied without consultation.
Others said they said it was unclear how or whom to escalate concerns to.
One senior member of staff at a care home said staff had successfully challenged every inappropriate DNACPR order they were aware of, but this had been difficult and the felt clinicians had ignored their concerns.
Some families of patients said they were not made aware such an order was in place until their relative was quite unwell.
Advertisement
Others said they had been told their loved one had agreed to a DNACPR order, but they had concerns over their understanding due to factors such as a lack of English or deafness.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--A Record 100,000 Americans Are Currently Hospitalised With Covid-19

LOADING ERROR LOADING
More than 100,000 Americans are currently hospitalised with Covid-19, a grim record amid three straight weeks of them: Every day since November 9 has seen more Americans hospitalised than at the peak of the first wave of this virus this spring, with more admissions every day.
This spring, hospital occupancy peaked on April 15th at 59,924, according to data provided by The Atlantic’s Covid Tracking Project. That record held until November 10, when the US saw 62,059 hospitalised; the number has crept steadily higher every day since.
Advertisement
Of the 100,226 currently hospitalised, 19,396 are in intensive care units and 6,855 are on a ventilator.
Deaths are certain to follow. Daily deaths are already approaching 2,500, on par with the worst numbers we saw in April:
Our daily update is published. States reported 1.4 million tests, 196k cases, and 2,733 deaths. There are 100,226 people currently hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US —the first time hospitalizations have exceeded 100k. pic.twitter.com/8QSKujBGao — The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) December 3, 2020
Health officials are scrambling to add capacity as hospitals are once again pushed to the brink and staff are stretched perilously thin.
Advertisement
“Hospitals all around the country are worried on a day-to-day basis about their capacity,” Dr Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told The Associated Press, “and we’re not really even into winter season and we haven’t seen the impact of Thanksgiving travel and Thanksgiving gatherings.”
Adalja noted that this surge of the virus is different than the hot spots we saw earlier in the year. This time, vast swaths of the country are seeing concurrent outbreaks, so resources ― including doctors and nurses ― can’t simply reallocate from elsewhere.
In North Dakota, home to the highest Covid-19 mortality rate in the world in mid-November, desperate hospitals have tried to lure in travelling nurses with salaries in excess of $8,000 a week.
“Nurses quit, join travelling nursing companies and go work for a different hospital down the street, making two to three times the rate,” Jordan Sorenson, a project manager for the Utah Hospital Association, told NBC News. “So it’s really a kind of a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul staffing situation.”
Dr Joseph Varon hugs and comforts a patient in the Covid-19 intensive care unit on Thanksgiving day at the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Go Nakamura via Getty Images
Advertisement
Data collected by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ “Protect” system shows 13.64% of all inpatient beds in the US are occupied by Covid-19 patients and 68.02%, or 484,736 beds, overall are full, though the accuracy of those numbers is highly disputable.
An investigation by Science Magazine in November found HHS Protect data to be highly inconsistent after the Trump administration and White House Coronavirus Task Force in July forced the CDC to turn over Covid-19 tracking responsibility to private contractors.
In the last two months, HHS Protect data tracking Covid-19 inpatient totals has been off by more than 20% in 30 states compared to state-supplied data, the academic journal found.
That discrepancy has led to real-world life and death problems as health officials seek to accurately distribute scarce resources. In Wisconsin, for instance, HHS Protect data reported 71% of state beds were full on Nov. 16, while a different system showed occupancy was 91%.
“The HHS Protect data are poor quality, inconsistent with state reports, and the analysis is slipshod,” a CDC source who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation from the Trump administration told Science. “And the pressure on hospitals [from COVID-19] is through the roof.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Luke Evans: 'I've Never Been Ashamed' Of Being Gay

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As Luke Evans found success in Hollywood, he may not have put forth a definitive statement about his sexuality ― but that doesn’t mean he was trying to hide it.
The actor was named Attitude’s 2020 “Man of the Year,” and told the British LGBTQ publication that accusations that he had kept quiet about his authentic self in prior interviews and on social media were simply “not true.”
Advertisement
“My career was public, I was photographed, and all that stuff,” Evans said. “My personal life just became the last thing that I had. Also, what was strange was that when people did find out that I was gay, there was a lot of articles and stuff written saying that I was hiding it, and I wasn’t.”
Growing up a Jehovah’s Witness, Evans struggled to come to terms with his sexuality as a teen. At 16, he left his home and his religion to pursue an acting career.
“There were a lot of bullies in my school, and I was an easy target,” he recalled. “I needed to find my identity, and I needed to be independent of my family, find my voice and be a happy, gay teenager.”
Advertisement
For Evans, having that journey made speculation that he’d chosen to stay closeted even more hurtful.
“I just wanted to get online and I wanted to pick up the phone and say, ‘Do you realise I left home at 16 because I was gay?’ I went into the world as a kid, because I had to,” he said. “I am proud and happy, and I’ve lived a very big life that I’m super happy with. And I’ve never been ashamed.”
Luke Evans Slaven Vlasic via Getty Images
These days, the 41-year-old is very much a bankable star, with well-received performances in the Hobbit and Fast And The Furious franchises. Earlier this year, it was announced he would reprise the role of Gaston ― which he first played in the 2017 live-action remake of Beauty And The Beast” ― in a forthcoming spinoff series for the Disney+ streaming service.
“I hope that I’ve broken down a lot of barriers, just because I’m trying to represent my community, but I can’t represent everybody,” said Evans, who has been romantically linked to Miami-based art director Rafael Olarra. “And I certainly can’t please everybody. I just have to do it my way.”
As to the advice he’d give to young LGBTQ people who may be struggling to come to terms with their true selves, he added, “You can be happy with yourself and you can also be whoever you want. You can have any career you want and nothing should dictate what you do because of your sexuality.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Piers Corbyn Found Guilty Of Breaching Coronavirus Lockdown Rules

LOADING ERROR LOADING
District judge Sam Goozee found the charge proven that he breached coronavirus rules during a gathering at Speakers’ Corner on May 16.
Advertisement
Corbyn, brother of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, wrote in his notepad as the judge delivered his verdict following a two-day hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
Returning his decision, the judge said: “Without the regulations in place, your conduct would have been lawful.
“But the enforcement of regulations was necessary for public health.
“Police took a measured response. You, however, didn’t engage with police – police action in arresting you was necessary and proportionate.”
Corbyn was handed an absolute discharge – meaning he will not be fined or face any further punishment – after the judge heard he had spent 12 hours in custody after being arrested.
Advertisement
Prosecutor David Povall described how Corbyn, 73, was a “poster boy for disparate groups” protesting at the time.
He previously told the court that the gatherings on May 16 featured about 100 or more people and could be characterised as “anti-lockdown”, with those present “engaged in a protest concerning issues around coronavirus and the coronavirus regulations”.
Povall told the court on Wednesday: “The Crown submits that the rally or demonstration on May 16 is not one where the court should find there’s a reasonable excuse for breaching clear and emphatic regulations that were in force at the time.
“Corbyn was an experienced campaigner… and was simply not prepared to comply with the lawful directions of police officers who were enforcing the law.
“They were left with no option but to arrest him in order to break up that unlawful gathering.”
Defence counsel Ben Cooper QC said the decision to arrest Corbyn was in contravention of his right to protest.
Advertisement
He also cited a tweet from Boris Johnson, responding to anti-racism rallies the following month, that “people have a right to protest peacefully”, and said the police decision to arrest him was “disproportionate and unnecessary”.
Cooper told the court: “Corbyn was participating in a gathering, he had reasonable excuse in relation to his right to peaceful protest.
“The crown interfered with his rights in a manner that was disproportionate and unnecessary.”
Corbyn did not give evidence in his defence.
Earlier, Goozee threw out a second charge against the defendant after he ruled the police were wrong to arrest Corbyn hours after he was handed a fixed penalty notice during a second protest at Hyde Park on May 30.
Addressing around two dozen supporters outside the court after the verdict, Corbyn raised his fist in the air and said: “We’ve had a tremendous result.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--7 Signs It's Time To Replace Your Face Mask

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Reusable cloth face masks are a good tool to prevent the spread of Covid-19. They’re also a better solution for mass use than disposable surgical masks, which are a potential source of microplastic pollution, according to a recent study published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin.
But as eco-friendly as cloth masks may be, they do become less effective at blocking the coronavirus when they’ve been worn thin by repeated washing and wearing.
Advertisement
With this in mind, it’s important to look out for the signs that your mask is no longer safely filtering out the respiratory droplets that carry the virus. Besides all the homemade facial coverings we’ve been using, many commercially made masks come with no warning of when it’s time to toss the product.
So we tapped an infectious disease expert, a dermatologist, a licensed physician and a washing expert to weigh in on all the signs you need to replace a mask. From loose straps to exposed threads, below are the warning signs your mask may be on its last legs.
The straps are worn out.
Rather than the mask fabric itself, it’s the elastic ear loops (or ties) that are the first place to show signs of wear ― especially if the mask has been exposed to high heat in the dryer, advised Hannah Yokoji, brand director of The Laundress, which sells nontoxic laundry and home cleaning products.
“The biggest thing to watch out for is the straps that keep the mask in place,” Yokoji said. “If these ties become loose or stretched, you need to stop using it straight away, because if the mask isn’t fitted properly to your face, you could be putting yourself and others in danger of Covid-19.”
Advertisement
Chansom Pantip via Getty Images If you can blow out a candle through your face mask, it's too thin to be effective.
The fit is no longer snug.
If you’ve been wearing your mask for a while and the fit is starting to loosen ― especially if the mask no longer securely covers your nose and mouth ― Yokoji advised either replacing the worn-out elastic or retiring the mask altogether.
“Your mask needs to fit snug under the chin, across the cheeks and around the nose,” she told HuffPost. “It shouldn’t have any gaps at all.”
A mask should also be replaced “if the nose clip no longer fits tightly around your nose,” said clinical public health and infectious disease expert Christina M. Madison.
There are exposed threads, tears or holes.
Retire any mask that has “threads, tears and holes that are exposed or torn,” Madison advised. Never use a mask with rips in it, she said, because the virus can enter and exit this way.
Advertisement
The mask is stained.
Whether they’re caused by coffee spills or makeup, licensed physician Leann Poston said that stains on a mask can also be a sign that it’s worn out.
“If the mask is visibly soiled and washing does not remove the stain, it’s probably time to toss it,” she added. “A stained mask has probably been overused and needs replacing.”
The fabric has worn thin.
Mask materials can become thinner the more you wash them, and thinner fabric provides a weaker barrier to the transmission of Covid-19, according to cosmetic dermatologist Howard Sobel, founder of Sobel Skin.
Though holes and gaps in your mask may be more obvious, Sobel said that testing for worn fabric can also be easily done in several ways.
“You will probably be able to tell a cotton mask has become thinner by look and feel,” he explained to HuffPost. “A way to test is to try blowing out a candle with your mask on. If you are able to blow it out, the mask is not effective at protecting you.”
Advertisement
Similarly, Poston suggested checking whether you can see through the fabric or, outside in colder temperatures, whether your breath is visible.
“If you hold the mask up to the light and can see light through it, it is probably too thin to be effective,” she said. “Another option is to blow through the mask and see if you feel your breath or see it, especially if it is cold outside.”
You haven’t been washing the mask according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
To preserve a mask, Madison said it’s important to wash it correctly.
“Not all face masks are made the same,” she explained. “It’s best to look at the care instructions provided with the product. If the product doesn’t specifically state that it can be machine-washed, it’s best to wash it by hand and then allow it to air-dry.”
Yokoji suggested investing in washing mesh bags, which help protect delicate fabrics.
You’ve washed a mask more than 30 times.
In any case, “frequent washing will stretch the fibres in some fabrics,” Poston said. This makes it crucial to wash your masks carefully but also to recognise when they’ve reached the end of their lifespan.
If you are using a high-quality mask, Madison advised a guideline of 30 washes or 30 wearings.
“Typically, 30 washes (or 30 wears) is a good rule of thumb if it’s a high-quality mask,” she said, “because generally, cloth face masks will lose their shape, elasticity and effectiveness after multiple washes.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--I’m An MP, And I’m Taking Part In A Vaccine Trial. Here’s Why

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Over the last nine months, our world have been turned upside down as the coronavirus pandemic takes not only lives from us, but livelihoods too.
Just as we began to realise the economic ramifications of this virus – that will be with us for a while – we discovered too that there was no quick fix, and our focus moved onto ensuring the development of safe, effective vaccines.
Advertisement
The results is that, this week, the UK became the first country in the world to approve a vaccine. The Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, which offers up to 95% protection against Covid-19 illness, was approved by the British regulator, the MHRA, who say the vaccine is safe for rollout from next week.
In many ways, this was the moment we have all been waiting for, but more work is still needed to support the science. We need more research so we can provide vaccines not just for the UK, but globally too.
To be as effective as possible, vaccine trials need thousands of volunteers. And although sign-ups have been positive, there has been poor take-up in BAME communities. Shadim Hussain, who sits on the trial’s management group, wrote for Wired that: “Ethnic minorities were 10 times less likely than the general population to participate in the vaccine trial” and that “they comprise 36 percent of the population, but only 3 percent of trial participants.”
“While I am keen to help the general effort to find a safe and effective vaccine, I felt it was important to take part in the trial because I am a member of the BAME community too.”
Advertisement
As Hussain highlights, Bradford’s population is particularly diverse – over a third of Bradford’s population is not white British, and the district has the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin in England. All this makes the Bradford Novovax trial a great opportunity to boost BAME participation in a vaccine trial.
I decided I wanted to contribute to this process, so last weekend I joined a vaccine trial. Why? While I am keen to help the general effort to find a safe and effective vaccine, I felt it was important to take part in the trial because I am a member of the BAME community too.
The trial I am taking part in is for the Bradford Novovax vaccine. As part of Bradford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (BTHFT), Bradford Royal Infirmary is delivering the world’s first Phase 3 study to test the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine developed by US biotechnology company Novavax. Those volunteering as part of the trial are given two doses of the vaccine – one on their first day and a second on day 21. We are then monitored for 12 months.
This is all the more important since it has become clear over the last nine months that ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by Covid-19. Since the publication of Public Health England’s Covid-19 disparities review in June, there has been a lot of discussion about systemic and cultural factors which contribute to disparities. The discussion of the causes of these disparities is certainly important, but so are the statistics themselves: “People of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian and Mixed ethnicities have a statistically significant raised risk of death involving Covid-19 compared those of white ethnicity”. To make this stark statement even clearer: People like me from Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities are between 30 and 80% more likely to die from coronavirus than white people. Black people are almost 90% more likely to die from coronavirus than white people.
“By taking part, I hope I am not only contributing to the research but also encouraging others to contribute too.”
These statistics should be taken into account alongside the fact that minority groups tend to have worse health overall than the general population. These health inequalities are driven by societal inequalities such as socioeconomic factors, educational attainment and discrimination. This means that it is not only hugely important that Black and minority communities are able to access the vaccine when it becomes available.
Despite the data there is a general reluctance among some people across all communities to be involved in vaccine trials, mostly due to the speed at which the vaccines have been developed and the limited testing they have had so far.
However, the reluctance to be involved with the trials from members of the BAME community is also a product of the government’s poor messaging. In Parliament I have raised the issue of ensuring critical coronavirus messaging reaches BAME viewers, yet the responses I receive are at best limited, and at worst dismissive. As such, it’s no surprise minority communities may not feel they have adequate information on vaccine trials or their benefits.
It seems to me, therefore, that the best way to encourage more to take part is to lead by example. By taking part, I hope I am not only contributing to the research but also encouraging others to contribute too. Of course more work needs to be done to ensure that messaging on the trials reaches the groups who need it most, but in the meantime I hope my participation is a message in itself – to BAME communities in Bradford and beyond.
Advertisement
Naz Shah is the Labour MP for Bradford West. Follow her on Twitter at @NazShahBfd


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--The Secrets To Making The Perfect Mulled Red Wine At Home

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sure, you can buy mulled wine from the supermarket, ready-made. But how about making your own at home this year? It’s probably easier than you think.
The festive creation has lots of gorgeous spices in, as well as fruits like orange, lemon, and ginger. We spoke to sommeliers and experts at wine bars to teach us the secret to the perfect hot, mulled wine.
Advertisement
“Don’t add sugar,” urges Ben McVeigh, a sommelier at south London neighbourhood restaurant and wine bar, Peckham Cellars. “Most mulled red wine recipes call for sugar and that’s what makes it too sweet.
“Classic mulled red wine calls for brandy, but try using port or sloe gin to add a little sweetness with extra depth and complexity at the same time.”
Choosing the right wine and getting the good quality stuff is just as important. “For red wine, opt for full-bodied, and fruity, but with low tannin and not oaky,” advises McVeigh.
“A classic Merlot from Italy or Chile will do the job just fine. After all, you’re heating it up and adding spices, you wouldn’t want to use something too fancy! But as with all things, the quality of the ingredients does count, so you don’t want something too basic either. I’d recommend an Italian Merlot.”
Advertisement
Don’t go overboard with the spices – opt for the traditional things such as cloves, star anise, cinnamon, bay leaf, lemon, and clementines. But have a little play, too – “half the fun of mulled wine is playing around and letting loose with the spices, depending on what’s in the cupboard,” he adds.
Adam Flanagan Peckham Cellar Red Wine
Then, when it’s cooking, it’s important everything is simmered low and slow.
“Don’t boil the wine, because then the alcohol starts to evaporate unless you want to make it weak and that is your actual goal,” says Katerina Jebousková, assistant general manager at south London wine bar Diogenes The Dog.
“I love the unique taste of added raisins in mulled wine because it soaks up all the beautiful flavour and it’s a lovely sweet touch,” she adds.
Learn how to make the perfect fuel (and hand warmers) for your winter walks with Jebousková’s ultimate mulled wine recipe.
Advertisement
Classic Mulled Red Wine
Serves: 3-4 people | Prep time: 10 mins | Cook time: 15 mins
Daniel Ogulewicz Red Mulled Wine at Diogenes The Dog
Ingredients:
3 cinnamon sticks
5 whole cloves
1g star anise
3g ground nutmeg
3-4 orange peels, ensure no white pith and only peel
1 x bottle of red wine
60ml brandy (can use other liquor such as cognac, rum, or sloe gin)
1 apple, sliced
1 orange, sliced
A big handful of raisins (optional)
1-2 tbsp honey (depending on personal preference, can use agave syrup or maple syrup for a plant-based option instead)
Method:
1. If you have time steep the fruits and spices together with the brandy overnight beforehand to leave to its own devices to infuse. If short on time, gently heat the fruit and spices with some water in a big pot on the hob for 15 minutes.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Here's When Experts Think We'll Properly Head Back To The Office

LOADING ERROR LOADING
While it’s business as usual for many people working in schools, retail, construction, healthcare and manufacturing (to name a few sectors), there are still tens of thousands of people – mainly office workers – who are working from home. Some haven’t even been back to their desk since March.
It’s been a long slog for workers getting up to speed with their new nine to five – now spent mostly glued to a laptop screen, wearing elasticated-waist trousers, and attending dozens of virtual meetings where someone’s wifi is always going into a frenzy every 10 minutes. The Zoom fatigue is alive and well.
Advertisement
Various secondary lockdowns in the UK have now lifted, but people are still being encouraged to work from home in areas where coronavirus infection rates are considered high – and it’s likely things will stay this way for some time yet.
In November, the UK government told workers in England they should prepare to work from home until April 2021.
A survey by Simply Communicate – a community for in-house communications, HR and digital workplace professionals – revealed that of those who are still working remotely, around 62% believe they’ll be back in the office by the end of March 2021 at the earliest. That’s a year after the pandemic first struck hard.
Gemma Dale, a lecturer, senior HR professional and author of Flexible Working, says most employers seem to be working to a rough timeline of spring 2021 in terms of the big return to work, however she notes that lots of companies prepared for a return this autumn that never then happened.
Advertisement
Luis Alvarez via Getty Images
“Ultimately the ‘return to the office’ – if indeed it happens at all fully – will depend on the virus and the availability of the forthcoming vaccines,” she said, a day before news broke that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine had been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
“Many organisations however are thinking about what that return really looks like. I have come across very few organisations that expect the future to look like the past,” says Dale. “Most are planning for some sort of hybrid / flexible approach and all that entails – although most seem to be in the early stages still of thinking through what this will look like in practice.”
Just over a third of respondents said they haven’t been back to the office since lockdown began, 75% of which are from organisations with more than a thousand employees.
Many companies will be waiting for a steer from the UK government before making any big changes – but with a vaccine on the cards and imminent deployment to vulnerable groups, changes could come sooner than later.
Advertisement
What will the new working day look like?
Businesses will still need to adopt ‘Covid secure’ procedures in the early days of the vaccine, as the nation’s immunity won’t just change overnight. For Rosie Hyam, people associate at City Pantry, employee confidence in those measures is key to a successful return to work. “One thing’s for certain, employers will have to provide a safe place of work for all of their employees,” she says.
Initially, it’s likely that larger companies will adopt a phased approach, implementing rota systems where certain members of staff, or specific teams, can head into the office on designated days and scheduled times.
For some, the pre-pandemic ‘normal’ working day might become a thing of the past altogether. Half of respondents to Simply Communicate’s survey feel their future organisation will be a balance of home and office-based working – and only 2% want everyone back in the office all the time.
Some businesses might shift to home working indefinitely cutting out the huge costs of renting office spaces, while others will want staff back and office-based full-time – but most are likely to adapt to a more flexible approach.
Jo Caine, who has over two decades of specialist HR recruitment experience at Cathedral Appointments, regularly speaks with senior HR leaders and says the vast majority are looking to implement a blended work pattern: a mix of working from home a few days a week and from the office for the rest.
Advertisement
Flexible could be the new normal
With the digital tools available and the experience gained over the past 10 months, the idea of everyone being in the office everyday “seems antiquated and unnecessary,” says Nelson Phillips, professor of Innovation and Strategy at Imperial College Business School. “We know flexible working and working from home, at least some of the time, is highly valued by many employees and it will be difficult for firms to simply say that being in the office five days a week is necessary when it obviously isn’t,” he says.
““Firms who do not trust their employees will be at a significant disadvantage in hiring the best people.” - Professor Nelson Phillips< Imperial College Business School
Historically, employers have not actively supported working from home. Jenny Perkins, head of engagement at leadership, talent and engagement consultancy Cirrus, explains why: “Many felt that for employees to be really productive, they needed to be in the office. All too often, this stemmed from a lack of trust. Many managers like to see where their teams are and what they’re doing.”
But lockdown has forced a “sudden and seismic change” as managers had to “let go” and “become more flexible”, she says. “Trust and flexibility are key as we take tentative steps back towards the office.” If a company doesn’t adopt this approach, it may struggle to retain its staff.
“Firms who do not trust their employees and whose cultures and management style do not lend themselves to this new form of working will be at a significant disadvantage in hiring the best people,” says Prof Phillips.
Advertisement
La Bicicleta Vermella via Getty Images
Working from home isn’t over
Given the level of savings that companies will be making – and needing to make – Joanna Taylor, managing directory of Let’s Talk Talent, doesn’t foresee home working going away. She believes workplaces will become much more about collaboration, innovation and strengthening team relationships, and less about desk-based work or task-based work.
“I suspect people won’t want to travel into an office to then just be sat at their desk for eight hours but will want to if it gives them an opportunity to connect with colleagues, to learn, to be inspired and to share with others,” she adds.
Prof Phillips predicts many companies will shed space as their leases come up and office spaces will be redesigned for more flexible work arrangements, which will drive an expansion of the use of co-working spaces. “All of this will mean really fundamental changes in how companies design, allocate, and use space,” he adds. “The idea of one office or one desk per employee which is just theirs and where they spend all their days is gone forever.”
Ultimately, he says, workplaces will be figuring out how to make their new working day function. “Finding out what works for each company will require experimentation and creativity to make the most of this opportunity to make work better for employees and to save money for companies while creating a more committed and motivated workforce.”
Advertisement
Vadym Pastukh via Getty Images
It won’t be easy
There are plenty of challenges relating to the return to work in 2021 – or whenever it happens. HR professionals believe businesses should now be asking employees what changes they want to see – and employers should be flexible to meet the needs of individuals. Supporting mental wellbeing and making staff feel safe will make or break the return to the office.
“There is much more to think about here than simply making sure the workplace is Covid secure – if indeed there is any such thing,” says Dale. “The global pandemic has been a source of reduced mental health for many employees, and a return to some sort of normal does not necessarily mean these issues will quickly resolve themselves.′
“For many employees, their work is central to their sense of self, their meaning and purpose. This may have been significantly impacted by a long period of being at home.” - Gemma Dale, senior HR professional
In October, mental health charity Mind warned of a ‘second, mental health pandemic’ if nothing is urgently done to support people mentally during the coronavirus pandemic. The call to action came after data on new urgent referrals to crisis care teams. Multiple studies and surveys have also shown a rise in anxiety and depression during the pandemic.
Advertisement
Managers need to be trained in identifying the signs of poor mental health and supporting staff, says Dale, and organisations need to put in systems, too. “There will be fears associated with returning, especially while the virus is still present in our lives,” she says. “Some people will naturally be reluctant to return and this may be especially so for groups who remain vulnerable.”
For those who’ve been furloughed, there may also be further issues that arise. There is no precedent, Dale adds, but we do know unemployment impacts mental and physical health.“For many employees, their work is central to their sense of self, their meaning and purpose. This may have been significantly impacted by a long period of being at home and [prompt] issues around returning, from fears about future job security to the impact on self-confidence.”
But there are positives
The shift to home working has given many employees more flexibility in their working day which Caine says not only leads to happier, healthier workforces but has also meant reduced costs for employers. A win-win.
The pandemic has also created “a sense of unity” that arguably wasn’t there before, she adds. “The leaders I have spoken to state that across the past nine months, there’s been a real increase in collaborative working and a real positive feeling of community.”
And perhaps one of the biggest shifts we’ve seen is that employers are more open to the idea of employing people from further afield, says Jo Caine, which could open doors to jobs in some of the UK’s major cities – without people needing to live there. “Encouragingly, there is now much greater employer flexibility in areas where there are talent shortages,” she adds, “a huge positive for the jobs market and, in the long-term, the economy.”
Advertisement
Clear guidance is crucial – even on the simplest of things, such as getting in and out of the building, the process for what happens if you start to feel ill, rules for navigating the office and even where you are and aren’t allowed to sit. Having empathetic and people-centric leaders will also be key, HR leaders agree.
“My own research suggests that employees have found this time a reflective one and many have thought deeply about how they want things, and their lives, to be different in the future,” says Dale. “I personally know of people who have left their employers in recent months – even in the midst of all this economic turmoil. They have decided to do something different, become self employed, followed different career paths.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--To Shop, Or Not? How Risky Christmas Shopping Is During Covid

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Non-essential are open across England under the tier system. But should we be visiting them before Christmas?
After months of being told to avoid contact with others, many might be tempted to stick to online shopping this year, relying on the big retail giants to bring gifts to their doors, in a bid to avoid the crowds.
Advertisement
Photos shared online since stores reopened on December 2 show large numbers of people gathered in city centre shopping locations, such as London’s Oxford Street and Nottingham city centre.
Nottingham, which is in tier 3, also had its Christmas market shut down after less than 24 hours, due to overcrowding.
But there’s also the delivery drivers and warehouse workers to think about – plus the impact on smaller businesses – if we flock to the likes of Amazon en masse.
Advertisement
The British high street is in need of a boost, too. Just this week, Arcadia (of Topshop and Dorothy Perkins-fame) fell into administration, putting 15,000 jobs at risk. Meanwhile Debenhams said it will begin to “wind down” operations, after rescue talks collapsed, putting 12,000 jobs at risk.
It makes the question – to shop, or not to shop – a tough one to answer. Ultimately, it comes down to weighing up the pros and cons, then deciding the right choice for you and your family, based on your Covid-19 risks.
We asked the experts what we should each consider.
Mark Thomas/Shutterstock Busy shoppers on Oxford Street, London on Dec 5 2020.
How dangerous is Christmas shopping?
Going Christmas shopping will increase your exposure risk to Covid-19 compared to sitting at home – but it might not be as risky as you think.
Professor Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases based at the University of East Anglia, has been researching the impact of pandemic interventions, looking at what worked and what didn’t during the first lockdown.
In the pre-print study (which is awaiting peer review), he and his colleagues found that the closure of all non-essential businesses, such as shops, did have an impact – but it was not as significant as the impact of the initial business closures when bars and pubs were instructed to close.
Advertisement
“So going shopping probably does pose some risk,” he concludes, “but is likely not as important as other settings.”
When asked whether it’s better to go to a small, local shop, rather than a retail park, Professor Hunter says the type of shop is neither here nor there.
“Whether a shop is independent, part of a chain in a town centre, or on a retail park probably is not that relevant,” he says. “In any situation, what matters for any risk is indoors vs outdoors, how long you spend there, how many other people there are and how close they get to you. To my mind, any type of shop that is heaving with people is a high risk.”
The risk to you (and your household) also depends on how vulnerable you are to Covid-19, he adds. The government advice on shopping for those clinically vulnerable is to consider going at quieter times of the day, or to ask friends and family to shop for you. Because of this, you may want to stick to online shopping for non-essential items (such as Christmas presents) if you were previously in the shielding group.
PA Shoppers in Nottingham city centre on December 6 2020.
Advertisement
How will our choices impact the economy?
Christmas is “always make or break for retailers”, says Clare Bailey, a retail expert and founder of The Retail Champion. The pandemic has only exacerbated existing challenges.
“Often Christmas represents between 30-60% of a retailer’s turnover,” she tells HuffPost UK. “If you look back over the last decade or more, it’s January when the rent payments are due that those who have had a bad Christmas often declare insolvency. And if they’ve made it through January, it’s often by the next rent payment in April that things start to collapse.”
Perhaps surprisingly, Bailey doesn’t believe small, independent businesses will take the biggest hit if we shift to online shopping.
“Small businesses have a big online presence via places like Etsy, eBay, Facebook marketplace and things like that,” she says. “People don’t realise how many tiny businesses start on a kitchen table with an Amazon marketplace account and become so strong that they feel they can open a shop.
“A lot of people are quick to say ‘Amazon is evil’ but actually, Amazon is a launchpad for a lot of businesses – and has an area called Launchpad – where small businesses can really start.”
Advertisement
Instead, it’s the city centre and shopping pavilion chains that Bailey predicts may take the biggest hit – stores such as Topshop, which sells online but isn’t famed for it, like some of its (cheaper) online-only competitors.
“The ones who have really struggled this year are actually the big guys,” she says, “because while they might be seen to have deep pockets – just look at Arcadia – they don’t.
“Changing operations across 200 stores or more – say, by offering a click and collect service or better integrating the online and offline offering – that’s costly and it takes a lot of change management, so they haven’t been able to respond quickly in the way that smaller businesses have. ”
LeoPatrizi via Getty Images
How can we shop as safely (and ethically) as possible?
If you’re worried about a much-loved retailer going under but want to avoid the shops, check if they’re online. This can include small, independent stores.
Advertisement
“Smaller retailers might not be online in the way you expect,” says Bailey. “Say you’ve got a local farm shop, for example, they might have a Facebook page where they say ‘give us a call, we’ve got Christmas hampers available’. You then call them up and they drop the order to your house. It’s not online shopping in the traditional sense, but it’s still a remote order.”
Without our daily commutes pushing us into city centres, many of us have gotten to know (and love) our local shops throughout the pandemic, yet we may feel torn when we read headlines about the likes of Arcadia. Bailey points out a move back to local could be the most ethical option long-term, though, reviving small businesses and cutting our carbon footprint.
But shopping local doesn’t always provide the cheapest options, she points out, and in a tough year on personal finances, it won’t be an option for some people. We shouldn’t be shaming anyone for heading to stores like Primark.
If you’re planning to shop in-person, getting in and out of shops quickly is a good idea – both for your own health, and as a courtesy to staff. Sage professor Lucy Yardley previously told Times Radio shoppers should be in and out in under 15 minutes.
“The rule that is useful for contact tracing is that if you spend 15 minutes with somebody closer than two metres, then you have definitely had a potentially infectious contact with them,” she said. “So that’s quite a generous amount of time, I am not sure that most of us would need that amount of time in a shop. And really the less time that you spend in there, the safer you are.”
Advertisement
Professor Hunter also offered HuffPost UK these tips on reducing your Covid risk while shopping:


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--No-Kill Meat Could Be Headed For A Plate Near You. Here's When

Eat Just Cultured chicken nuggets from Eat Just
No-kill meat – or cultured meat – is making headlines again after a company that grows meat in a laboratory had its products approved for sale by a regulatory authority abroad.
US company Eat Just’s lab-grown chicken has been approved by the Singapore Food Agency for sale, in what is deemed a world first for this type of meat.
Advertisement
The meat is produced directly from animal cells, which means no animals need to be fed, bred or slaughtered to make it. And while it might sound incredibly futuristic, it’s likely we’ll be seeing more of it on the market as more companies get behind the idea, and regulatory authorities approve them for general sale.
Here’s what you need to know.
How is no-kill meat made?
A small sample of cells is taken from live animals and fed nutrients and grown into muscles in a laboratory. The process to make meat from the cells takes about four to six weeks.
What are the benefits?
There are multiple benefits to this type of meat, say its makers. Firstly, no animals are harmed in the making of it, which is a huge deal. Secondly, it’s considered better news for the planet.
Environmentalists have long warned that the world’s growing appetite for meat is not sustainable because beef, pork and poultry require far more resources than plant-based proteins. The greenhouse gases produced by cows, of which there are many, are also a problem.
Advertisement
Meat grown in a lab requires far less land, energy and water, though it will still depends on rearing and keep some animals to harvest cells for the production of the meat.
Memphis Meats Cultured meatballs from Memphis Meats
Is ‘no kill’ meat safe?
Due to it being such a new concept, not a huge amount is known about the potential health benefits and drawbacks of no-kill meat. However, it’s believed that cultured meat has a lower risk of containing intestinal pathogens that you’d find in animals like E.coli and Salmonella. It’s also unlikely to contain antibiotics.
Eat Just’s product has undergone rigorous testing to be approved by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA). According to the company, safety and quality validations demonstrated the cultured chicken met the same standards as poultry meat, with low and cleaner microbiological content than conventional chicken.
Eat Just also claims its cultured chicken contains a high protein content, diversified amino acid composition, high relative content in healthy monounsaturated fats and is a rich source of minerals.
Advertisement
As part of the SFA approval process, the cultured chicken was confirmed to be safe and nutritious for human consumption by an outside panel of international scientific authorities in Singapore and the US with expertise in medicine, toxicology, allergenicity, cell biology and food safety.
The SFA said: “It was found to be safe for consumption at the intended levels of use, and was allowed to be sold in Singapore as an ingredient in Eat Just’s nuggets product.”
Is it suitable for vegetarians?
An Eat Just spokesperson tells HuffPost UK that because its meat is real meat, but made from cells instead of animals that are raised and slaughtered, the cultured chicken it produces is not a plant-based, vegan or vegetarian product.
But because the meat is made in a way that does not involve animal suffering and the process of making it is generally considered better for the planet, some vegetarians say they would happlly eat it.
Advertisement
How affordable is it?
One of the key challenges of lab-grown meat is that it costs a lot to make, which means it also costs a fair bit to buy. Eat Just previously said it would sell cultured chicken nuggets at $50 each (almost £40), which let’s face it, most people wouldn’t pay for a plate of nuggets.
Advertisement
“Singapore is the first country in the world to approve cultured meat. We’re working with regulators in the U.S. and elsewhere on a path to market,” says its spokesperson. “We hope that Singapore can be a model for other countries as they create frameworks for companies to sell cultured meat.”
The company plans to first launch its product at a restaurant in Singapore – “we are working with their chef and team on the menu, accompaniments, and price,” says its spokesperson.
“Right from the start, we will be at price parity for premium chicken at a high-end restaurant. We’ve made considerable progress on what it costs to produce cultured meat as well. However, to achieve our mission, we’ll need to be below the cost of conventional chicken, which we expect to happen in the years ahead.”
As more people get on board with the idea and production of such products is scaled up, the price will inevitably come down.
Will it be coming to the UK?
So far there’s no news of Eat Just’s cultured chicken arriving on UK soil, however that’s not to say other no-kill meat products aren’t in development here. Chances are it’ll be a while before we see any in restaurants and on supermarket shelves, however.
Advertisement
The authorisation of ‘lab grown meat’ or ‘cultured meat’ in the UK will depend on how the food is produced. Any new food products (or food produced through a new process) that weren’t on the market before May 1997 are considered ‘novel foods’ and require pre-market authorisation.
Such products have to undergo a rigorous scientific risk assessment and be authorised before it can be sold. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) confirmed that, at present, no applications for such products have been submitted and, consequently, none can currently be marketed in the EU.
“The FSA’s top priority is ensuring that UK food is safe and what it says it is,” a spokesperson told HuffPost UK. “Our enhanced risk analysis process will ensure we are equipped to maintain the UK’s high standard of food safety and consumer protection.”
Researchers at the University of Bath have been growing meat in a laboratory to determine how they could make it on a large scale. One of the biggest issues facing “no-kill” meat producers is how to upscale the production to make it financially and environmentally sustainable to feed the masses.
Dr Marianne Ellis, senior lecturer in biochemical engineering, told PA Media last March: “The UK really is one of the key essential players globally on the scale-up so that is what we’re working on as engineers, developing systems to grow the cells on a large scale.”
Advertisement
“In terms of when we’re likely to see it in the supermarkets, probably the most advanced company at the moment is Mosa Meat and they are predicting four to five years,” Dr Ellis told PA.
So, who else is making it?
Mosa Meat’s founders introduced the world to the first cultured beef hamburger in 2013 by growing it naturally from cow cells. The Netherlands-based company is now working on scaling up production of the same beef product and getting the approvals it needs to sell it to the public.
While its first burger product cost a massive €250,000 to make, according to Sifted, the company now projects that each burger will cost a more palatable €9 thanks to tweaks in the production process.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Pregnant Doctors Like Me Are Still Being Put At Risk

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Pregnant doctors around the UK have been raising concerns about workplace safety since the start of the pandemic.
Earlier this year, pregnant nurse Mary Agyeiwaa Agyapong died of Covid-19 soon after giving birth, after reporting similar fears.
Advertisement
Her husband, Ernest Boateng is campaigning for all pregnant women who are more than 20 weeks gestation to be legally entitled to work from home, or suspended on full pay.
Pregnant women remain in the clinically vulnerable category, which according to the most up to date government guidance, means they should strictly social distance.
During the summer, when the shielding restrictions were lifted, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) archived its Covid-19 occupational health guidance for pregnant women, leading to many NHS trusts relaxing their approach towards expecting healthcare workers – despite the risks being unchanged.
Advertisement
Doctor Meenal Viz, who is pregnant, protests about the lack of PPE and protection for NHS health workers. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth) ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Doctors’ Association UK has heard from a number of worried pregnant NHS workers who have been on the frontline.
“I don’t feel safe,” one surgical junior doctor from the South-East told us, speaking of her discomfort at being asked to continue working night shifts during her second trimester.
“I have been told that I should continue to work beyond 28 weeks in “green” areas (ie free of coronavirus), as there is no evidence of increased risk to pregnant women. However, we have had multiple patients admitted to our supposed “green” ward who have turned out to test positive for coronavirus.”
Another trainee from London was also desperately worried. She was informed that all pregnant staff should continue to work on site, including on-calls, with the advice to call in the consultant if a high-risk patient presented.
“It is quite unnerving to hear so many doctors sent home from 28 weeks, when you have been told to continue as normal,” she said. “The differing advice being given across the country is a worry. I generally toe-the-line and feel very uncomfortable challenging managers. I assume that I will catch covid at some point and I just have to hope that it is not severe.”
Advertisement
“The pandemic has made us refocus on what is important and shown that it is possible to adapt our working practices to ensure staff can still be productive yet safe.”
A medic based in Scotland told us of similar fears following outbreaks of coronavirus amongst her colleagues, who were sharing small office spaces and unable to adequately social distance.
“I became so anxious at work, that I eventually approached my supervisors to request I was no longer patient facing. Fortunately, they were sympathetic and arranged for me to do telephone clinics and admin, but I really don’t think I would have been able to avoid catching the virus without doing this.”
Recent studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the States have provided further evidence that pregnant women may be at more risk of severe disease if they contract coronavirus, including an increased risk of preterm labour and stillbirth. Among the 703 cases described in the two reports, three of the women died, and between 16-30% required support on intensive care.
As a pregnant doctor myself, I chose to avoid a return to face-to-face work when I found out I was pregnant earlier this year, and feel my family is safer for me doing so.
Advertisement
I am in the incredibly fortunate position of being able to work entirely from home, as the service I work for was set up for remote working even before the virus hit. I wrestle with feelings of guilt for not being “on the frontlines” alongside my colleagues, but have come to realise I am still doing my job and helping people every day.
The Doctors’ Association UK advocate for medical professionals and are concerned that many pregnant healthcare workers are being exposed to covid-19 through their frontline work. We have a duty to protect these women and their unborn children and there is an urgent need for clear occupational health guidance from the government.
The pandemic has made us refocus on what is important and shown that it is possible to adapt our working practices to ensure staff can still be productive yet safe.
I feel strongly that my colleagues should be extended the same protection as myself.
Dr Ellen Welch is a GP and author based in Cumbria. She is also a GP advisor for the Doctors Association UK


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--The Home Office Is Using Your Money To Breach Human Rights

Home Secretary Priti Patel signs a new agreement with her French counterpart Gerald Darmanin aimed at curbing the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats. Stefan Rousseau - PA Images via Getty Images
This year marked an unusually high number of migrants attempting to cross the English Channel from France.
In August, at the height of the crossings, more than 4,900 had arrived on the shores of the UK in small boats, carrying men, women, and children desperate to find refuge within the safety of our borders.
Advertisement
As the year ends, 8,000 have made the perilous journey across the Channel.
The summer was replete with opinions falling on either side of the spectrum – those wanting to keep migrants out and those fighting to let them in. As the weather grew colder, crossings have become less frequent and news coverage of the plight of refugees has diminished.
In the quiet, Priti Patel has announced the Home Office will join forces with the French government to spend £28.2m on increased measures to make the Channel crossings unviable. Drones, radar equipment, cameras and optronic binoculars have all been agreed upon in order to detect and stop migrants on their 21-mile journey across the Channel. Additionally, the number of French police patrolling the coastline is set to double.
These measures cost money, and we, the British public are paying for them.
Our taxes are being used to breach the human right for any person to seek asylum. But this isn’t the message the Home Office wants to send.
In her announcement, Patel stated: “We should not lose sight of the fact that illegal migration exists for one fundamental reason: that is because there are criminal gangs – people traffickers – facilitating this trade.”
Advertisement
The truth of her claim can’t be denied. Human traffickers and people smugglers do prey on the vulnerabilities of refugees. When people are desperate for safety, a fair asylum process, and to be reunited with loved ones, they will go to great lengths to find it. And people traffickers provide the answer: dangerous journeys across the Channel on trains and lorries.
Her message, at first glance, seems to paint the Home Office in a positive light. After all, the government just want to protect refugees from making the perilous journey into the UK provided to them by criminal gangs.
That’s what they want us to think.
“Charities, advocates, and human rights organisations are unanimously calling for the same thing: viable routes from France to the UK.”
In fact, they are doing everything they can to keep refugees out of the UK. From deporting migrants arriving on small boats upon arrival, to spouting jargon that the crossings were illegal, to witnessing the death of children without taking immediate action, the UK Home Office has made it painfully clear they want to prevent refugees stepping onto our soil. And millions more pounds are about to go toward supporting their aim.
Patel’s point remains. The crossings are dangerous and often facilitated by criminal gangs and people traffickers. However, the Home Office’s plan to end the crossings leave refugees abandoned in France.
Advertisement
Under France’s new Minister of the Interior, Gerald Darmanin, refugees face harsh treatment. Refugee camps have been dismantled, recently quite brutally in Paris. They have also recently tried to control immigration numbers by attempting to make the country less attractive to those hoping to find security in her borders.
France doesn’t want them. The United Kingdom doesn’t want them. So where are these traumatised, vulnerable refugees to go?
Charities, advocates, and human rights organisations are unanimously calling for the same thing: viable routes from France to the UK – safe ways that people can access to claim asylum. If a refugee doesn’t need to depend on a trafficker to get into the UK, dangerous boat journeys or jumping onto the top of a lorry wouldn’t be needed. We would protect the vulnerable and dry up the work for the criminal.
This process would cost too. There will be the price for transport, the price for accommodation, the price for an increased number of workers to process claims, the price for deportations of those that have had claims denied. And then there is the price of hosting successful asylum seekers in the UK. It wouldn’t be cheap.
But it would be money I would gladly have taken from my pay cheque, money that would go toward supporting men, women, and children who have endured war, famine, drought, racial discrimination, religious persecution. I’m prepared for finances to go towards helping them find security, safety, housing, and food.
Advertisement
Because it would be money giving human rights, instead of taking them away.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-04--Anthony Fauci Backtracks After Claiming UK 'Rushed' Covid Vaccine Approval

LOADING ERROR LOADING
America’s top infectious disease expert has rowed back from a suggestion that the UK approved a Covid-19 vaccine too quickly.
Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, claimed American regulators “would do a more thorough job” of assessing the vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech.
Advertisement
He told CBS News that Britain “kind of ran around the corner of the marathon and joined it in the last mile”, adding: “They really rushed through that approval.”
Dr Fauci said: “The FDA, the United States of America Food and Drug Administration, is the gold standard of regulation. They are doing it in a careful way, appropriately.”
He warned that the speed at which the UK has approved the Pfizer vaccine could undermine confidence in the jab, telling Sky News: “When we did a survey here in the US, there was a considerable degree of scepticism and reluctance to get vaccinated and we were concerned that if we did anything that looked like it was cutting corners that would feed into the scepticism.”
But in a later interview with BBC News, Dr Fauci said he did not mean to “imply any sloppiness”, adding: “I do have great faith in both the scientific community and the regulatory community at the UK.”
Advertisement
He said there was “no judgement on the way the UK did it”.
Dr Fauci told the BBC: “Our process is one that takes more time than it takes in the UK. And that’s just the reality. I did not mean to imply any sloppiness even though it came out that way.”
The comments came as the coronavirus death toll in the UK passed the 60,000 mark, jumping to 60,113 on Thursday.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) offered a toned down response to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) decision, simply stating the approval had been “acknowledged”.
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci. The Washington Post via Getty Images
In response to the comments, the MHRA said in a statement: “We have rigorously assessed the data in the shortest time possible, without compromising the thoroughness of our review.
Advertisement
“Covid-19 vaccines, including this one, are being developed in a co-ordinated in a way that allows some stages of this process to happen in parallel to condense the time needed, but it does not mean steps and the expected standards of safety, quality and effectiveness have been bypassed.”
It added that a rolling review of the vaccine data started at the beginning of October, and since then the data, and had made good progress on the review before the last submission of data was received.
“Any vaccine must undergo robust clinical trials in line with international standards, with oversight provided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
“No vaccine would be authorised for supply in the UK unless the expected standards of safety, quality and efficacy are met,” the statement concluded.
Dr Siddhartha Sankar Datta, WHO regional adviser for vaccine-preventable diseases and immunisation in Europe, said: “The national regulatory authority of a country will review the different elements of a system before they make the vaccine licensed for use – (based on) the safety, efficacy and quality of the vaccine.
Advertisement
“That is what the UK’s national regulatory authority has done yesterday with their evaluation. We have learned about it and we acknowledge it.”
Despite this criticism, a Cabinet minister declared the UK is getting a coronavirus vaccine first because it is a “much better country” than France, Belgium and the US.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson praised the work done by the medical regulator to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for use.
The first doses of the vaccine are now believed to have arrived in the UK.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-04--Alcohol Is Particularly Bad For Your Brain At These 3 Ages

Experts have pin-pointed three key time periods in life when the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain are likely to be at their greatest.
While drinking booze can harm the brain at any point in your life, researchers in Australia and the UK suggest there are three periods of brain changes that may be particularly sensitive to the effects of alcohol. These are: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years).
Advertisement
In the British Medical Journal (BMJ), they warned that these key periods “could increase sensitivity to the effects of environmental exposures such as alcohol” and called for a focus on harm prevention policies.
Conception to birth
Obviously we’re not talking about booze-swigging babies here. Globally, around 10% of pregnant women consume alcohol, with rates considerably higher in European countries than the global average, researchers said.
The Chief Medical Officers for the UK recommend that if someone is pregnant or planning to become pregnant, the safest approach is not to drink alcohol at all. This is because drinking alcohol, especially in the first three months of pregnancy, has been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth and the baby having a low birthweight. Drinking after the first three months of pregnancy could affect the baby after they’re born.
Heavy alcohol use during pregnancy can cause foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can result in poor growth and learning and behavioural problems. Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioural outcomes in offspring, data suggests.
Advertisement
Late teens
More than 20% of 15-19 year olds in European and other high income countries report at least occasional binge drinking – defined as consuming 60g of alcohol on a single occasion.
KatarzynaBialasiewicz via Getty Images
Studies indicate that the transition to binge drinking in adolescence is associated with reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development (which is critical for efficient brain functioning), and small to moderate deficits in a range of cognitive functions, researchers said.
65 and over
In older people, alcohol-use disorders were recently shown to be one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for all types of dementia – particularly early onset dementia – compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.
Although alcohol-use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, the authors said even moderate drinking has been shown to be linked to a small but significant loss of brain volume in midlife. Further studies are needed, though, to test whether these changes translate into actual impairment.
Advertisement
So, what does this mean?
When asked whether pregnant people, adolescents and those aged 65 and over should take even greater care than the rest of the population, Tony Rao, a researcher in alcohol and dementia at King’s College London, said yes. “The evidence does point to these three key times during the lifespan, when the brain is at most risk from the damaging effects of alcohol,” he tells HuffPost UK.
“This would mean that extra vigilance is required during these stages of life and increased investment needed to provide harm reduction interventions. It also means that extra care should be taken with alcohol intake at these stages.
“We know the safest measure is not drink at all during pregnancy and that lower risk limits for older people may need to be lower than for the general population.”
The researchers of the study in the BMJ called for an integrated approach to reduce harm from drinking alcohol at all ages, especially as surveys have suggested people drank more alcohol during the first Covid-19 lockdown.
Advertisement
The Global Drug Survey, conducted during April and May, also revealed more than half of people have drank more – but also that excessive drinking left many of us feeling worse, exacerbating underlying mental and physical health issues.
The researchers recommended guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits, as well as training that considers risk to the human brain throughout life.
Dr Richard Piper, chief executive of Alcohol Research UK, tells HuffPost UK: “We all know that alcohol affects the brain in the short term when we feel tipsy or drunk. But research such as this new study is shedding light on the complex ways that alcohol affects our brains in the long-term too, and as we learn more our policy makers must respond.
“Evidence shows that there are effective, workable measures that can reduce the harm caused by alcohol – for example setting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol, a measure already in place in Scotland and Wales while England lags behind. There is an ever-growing list of reasons why change is vital, and urgent.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Is Boris Johnson Overselling The Moonshot Merits Of Rapid Covid Tests?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
You’re reading The Waugh Zone, our daily politics briefing. Sign up now to get it by email in the evening.
From PMQs to the No.10 press briefings, Boris Johnson has had plenty of tricky questions lobbied his way over the past few months. But the one that really made him squirm most today was from a member of the public who innocently raised the topic of his wedding plans.
Advertisement
In his Facebook “People’s PMQs”, wedding organiser Lara said “you’re supposed to be getting married too..” Perhaps it was the phrase “supposed to be” that unnerved him, but Johnson sounded distinctly uncomfortable as he blurted out: “I didn’t want to drag that in...anyway, we’ll take that one offline, as they say.”
As Twitter frothed with wild speculation about whether the PM was or wasn’t getting cold feet about his planned nuptials to fiancee Carrie Symonds, the more interesting point was Johnson’s suggestion on how the wedding industry could revive next year: through lateral flow tests.
There was a “real possibility that lateral flow testing will allow events like weddings to go ahead”, he said. Moreover, it was his strong hope and belief that by the summer “whether by vaccination, which I hope and believe we will have delivered by Easter, or by lateral flow testing, we will be in a different world”.
Read that sentence carefully and you realise just how much emphasis Johnson puts on rapid-testing technology. It’s as important as vaccination in the liberation of the public to do the things they have longed to do, he suggested. In fact, the PM said the phrase “lateral flow test” more times in that PPMQs than any other Covid buzzword. Just as he has all week.
Advertisement
There are lots of good reasons for wanting lateral flow tests to work. Their speed means people can isolate much quicker (and any positive result is always backed up by a PCR test to confirm it). They’re less invasive than PCR swabs and they have potential to change lives.
But, as I’ve previously written, there is actually not a lot of data on the effectiveness of lateral flow device (LFD) tests used in Liverpool or whether their “community testing” pilot really did lead to the dramatic fall in coronavirus cases in the city. The data will come in time, but it’s not there yet, despite Johnson and Matt Hancock linking testing to case numbers.
And today there were fresh doubts raised about lateral flow tests by Birmingham University biostatistics professor Jon Deeks. He seized on a little-noticed stat buried in this week’s community testing prospectus for councils, showing that lateral flow tests in Liverpool actually had a much lower “false negative” rate than lab tests.
“In the field evaluation in Liverpool, compared to PCR tests, these tests picked up 5 out of 10 of the cases PCR detected and more than 7 out of 10 cases with higher viral loads, who are likely to be the most infectious,” the government’s own document states. Deeks said that missing 50% of all cases was bad enough, but missing 30% of high viral loads was “NOT SAFE” [his caps, not mine, reader].
As it happens, even the Oxford/Public Health England evaluation of these tests found their sensitivity under lab conditions (76% overall and 90% for high viral loads) fell to just 58% when put in the hands of self-trained individuals. But there will be members of the public who wonder whether Deeks is onto something to question just how reliable the tests are. Especially when their use is now a key part of plans to let relatives visit care homes.
Advertisement
Insiders at NHS Test and Trace stress that the whole point of the rapid tests is to be additional to, not substitutes for, the “gold standard” PCR tests. They also say that care homes are being opened up through better infection control and PPE, and again lateral flow tests are on top of all that. But only this week Sheffield council said it would not use them in its care homes because of “an unacceptably high risk of not correctly detecting infected individuals”.
It’s not just weddings or care homes that the PM envisages this technology allowing a return to more normal life. Theatres, football matches, airline flights, students, may all come to rely on them under government plans. Yet people like Deeks have long been sceptical about using them in “test and release” settings like universities.
Only this week, it emerged that the government wants to pilot ways to allow individuals in Tier 3 areas to have Tier 2-style freedoms to mix with others if they provide to negative LFD tests. And of course they are proposed as part of routine testing of NHS staff too. I understand that one key reason for using them in the NHS is that – despite the 500,000 daily PCR capacity – there just isn’t enough PCR capacity in hospitals to make routine testing work. That doesn’t sound to me like they’re “extra tests, not substitute tests”.
The science on just how many asymptomatic cases can be picked up by LFDs is also unclear. And several academics are wondering just why an independent regulator like the UK National Screening Committee has not been involved in signing off their use in community testing. Vaccines need regulators, as we’ve seen this week, so why not mass testing?
Asked about Deeks’ concerns, the DHSC told me tonight: “With up to a third of individuals with Covid-19 not displaying symptoms, broadening testing to identify those showing no symptoms and who can infect people unknowingly will mean finding positive cases more quickly and break chains of transmission. The country’s leading scientists have rigorously evaluated the Optigene LAMP test and Lateral Flow Test and confirmed the accuracy of the tests for asymptomatic testing.”
Advertisement
There’s another worrying sign for the government’s critics too. The tests used in Liverpool and elsewhere are made by US firm Innova Medical, but supplied to the UK via a tiny company called Tried and Tested, which has (according to the Guardian) no apparent UK office and operates out of a room in Wallingford, Oxfordshire. The £138m contract signed with Innova was not put out to tender.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Boris Johnson Awkwardly Dodges Question About Marriage Plans At People's PMQs

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Boris Johnson has awkwardly dodged a question about when he is getting married after being quizzed by a member of the public.
The prime minister and his fiancée Carrie Symonds got engaged in December, and have been unable to tie the knot. Symonds will become the Tory leader’s third wife.
Advertisement
During a session of People’s Prime Minister’s Questions broadcast on Facebook on Thursday, Johnson was asked about the impact of coronavirus restrictions on weddings by Lara from Cornwall.
Referencing the roll-out of a vaccine and the expansion of rapid testing, Johnson said: “If you are thinking about the summer, I think you will be alright.
“It’s my strong hope and belief that by the summer, one way or the other, whether by vaccination, which I hope and believe we will have delivered by Easter, as I say, or by lateral flow testing, we’ll be in a different world.
“So, my hope is that by summer it really will be a different world for the weddings and events industry.”
Advertisement
Downing Street Downing Street
Lara, who said her own wedding had been cancelled because of the pandemic, then pressed Johnson on his own plans for the future.
She said: “And you’re supposed to be getting married too, so ...”
Johnson responded on the defensive: “I didn’t want to drag that in. Anyway, we’ll take that one offline as they say.”
He added: “I think mass testing will help before Easter, hopefully, well before Easter, but I think you should be able to plan for a really much more active summer, and lots of happy nuptial events all over the UK.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Vaccinate The Royal Family Before Pub Workers, Say British Public

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The royal family should be vaccinated against Covid-19 before pub workers, the British public have said in a new survey.
A YouGov poll of more than 2,000 people, published on Thursday, reveals – perhaps unsurprisingly – that 90% of Britons believe frontline healthcare workers should be the government’s priority for receiving the vaccine.
Advertisement
Eight-out-of-ten people believe care home workers should receive the vaccine as a priority, while 78% of people said care home residents themselves should be pushed to the front of the queue.
Three quarters of people surveyed also said those over 80 should be prioritised.
But the poll didn’t stop with care workers and the elderly. Half of those polled said social workers should be prioritised, slightly ahead of police officers at 48%.
The YouGov poll showing who Britons would prioritise for the Covid-19 vaccine. YouGov
Meanwhile, more than 10% of the British public said the royal family should be prioritised by the government. That’s higher than any worker in the hospitality industry, politicians, and Premier League footballers.
Advertisement
Pubs have dominated the public discourse in recent days, with many landlords facing closure due to heavy restrictions on opening hours and capacity under the tough new tiers. In tier 3, which covers millions of people across swathes of the country, nobody is allowed to sit inside a pub or restaurant – with only pre-booked takeaways permitted.
Even in tier 2 pubs are prohibited from serving drinks unless they are sold alongside a “substantial meal”. On Tuesday the government said pubs that don’t serve would be given a £1,000 grant to help them survive the strictest rules, an amount described as a “joke” and an “insult” by some landlords.
Just 4% of people said politicians should be prioritised ahead of the general public – the same percentage of people who said prisoners should be amongst the first to get the vaccine.
One in eight said people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities should be included among the top priority groups. This follows calls from high profile politicians such as Sadiq Khan to do so alongside evidence that people from these communities are disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
The vaccine rollout is due to begin in hospitals next week, and while royal family members and top-flight footballers haven’t been mentioned specifically, the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) issued it’s list of who would be prioritised on Wednesday.
Advertisement
The UK has already ordered 40m doses of the free jab – enough to vaccinate 20m people, or a third of the population.
The JCVI says its ranking of priorities is a “combination of clinical risk stratification and an age-based approach, which should optimise both targeting and deliverability”.
Here is its new priority list:
Older adults resident in a care home and care home workers All those 80 years of age and over. Front line health and social care workers All those 75 years of age and over All those 70 years of age and over All those 65 years of age and over All Individuals aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions. All those 60 years of age and over All those 55 years of age and over All those 50 years of age and over The rest of the population (priority to be determined)
But despite facing huge losses throughout the pandemic and being placed at the top of the priority list, it emerged on Wednesday that hundreds of thousands of care home residents will miss out on the first wave of Covid vaccinations.
Hours after the list was published Boris Johnson admitted during a press conference that there were huge “logistical challenges” surrounding delivering the vaccine to care homes.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-12-03--Quarantine Rules: 'High Value' Business Travellers No Longer Have To Self-Isolate

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Transport secretary Grant Shapps has said “high-value” business travellers –which includes sports stars and performing arts professionals – returning to England from 4am on Saturday will no longer need to self-isolate even if they have visited a destination not on the travel corridors list.
He added that the travel corridors list will not change this week.
Shapps said in a tweet that “certain performing arts professionals, TV production staff, journalists and recently signed elite sportspersons” would also be exempt from quarantine rules from 4am on Saturday.
Advertisement
New Business Traveller exemption: From 4am on Sat 5th Dec high-value business travellers💼will no longer need to self-isolate when returning to ENGLAND from a country NOT in a travel corridor, allowing more travel to support the economy and jobs. Conditions apply. — Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) December 3, 2020
Journalists and TV production staff will also benefit from the new policy.
Exemptions will be “subject to specific criteria being met”, the Cabinet minister said.
These include trips that create or preserve at least 50 UK jobs.
Individuals will only be exempt when undertaking specific business activity and will only be permitted to meet with others as required by that, the Department for Transport (DfT) said in a statement.
Further information will be issued once the new rules come into force at 4am on Saturday.
The DfT said sectors such as media and elite sport were also selected for exemption from quarantine as they “require specific, high-talent individuals who rely on international connections”.
It added: “PHE (Public Health England) do not anticipate these changes will raise the risk of domestic transmission, due to the protocols being put in place around these exemptions, however all exemptions will remain under review.”
Advertisement
Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, said: “This is a welcome first step in dismantling the quarantine system and showing that Britain is open for business again.