Sadananda Gowda Suddenly Fell Sick

New Delhi, May 24 (IANS) The Congress on Sunday lashed out at the Gujarat government over the state's "sick healthcare system" and also targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on the issue."Today, we don't have a healthcare system (in the state); we have a sick system. The inefficiency of the Gujarat government in handling Covid crisis shows that it is undermining, under-confident, and under-achieving," Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said. "It is my sad duty to bring to the country's attention the deplorable and indefensible plight of medical and health facilities in Modi's home state and in part of Shah's constituency (4 assembly segments of Ahmadabad fall in Gandhinagar parliamentary constituency)."The Congress leader said: "We would respectfully ask the PM, HM, GOI, and Gujarat CM -- Are you even aware of what is happening in your own home state? If so, have you ever intervened, chastised or punished the Gujarat government or does the latter have Covid immunity vaccine because they belong to the BJP?"Singhvi said if such powerful people who control the levers of power were unable to provide justice on their home ground to the poor and needy, what could the rest of India's teeming millions expect from them.The Congress leader referred to Gujarat High Court observations on the "lack of PPE, shortage of ventilators, ICUs and isolating wards..." and "pathetic" conditions at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.He said that even the High Court had observed that state Health Minister "does not seem to be aware of what is going on, nor appears to have ever visited the hospital".The party also questioned why private testing of coronavirus suspected cases, even by authorised private institutions, was stopped by the Gujarat government which ordered that cornan tests can be conducted only at government hospitals.Singhvi pointed to "proactive" role of the Bengal Governor but the "silence" of the Gujarat Governor on coronavirus situtations in their respective states.--IANSmiz/tsb

London, May 15 (IANS) Physically demanding jobs are linked to shorter working lives, more sick leaves and unemployment than jobs that don't rely on muscle and heavy exercises, say researchers.For the findings, published in the journal The BMJ, the researchers looked at the working life expectancy of 1.6 million people in Denmark between the ages of 18 and 65 who had a job as of November 2013.The level of physical demand required for each person's job was measured by the job exposure matrix or JEM for short. This covers 317 different types of occupation. The JEM score was categorised as low physical demands (below 16); moderate (16-28); and high (28 plus)."This study showed that high physical work demands are a marked risk factor for a shortened expected working life and increased years of sickness absence and unemployment," the study authors from National Research Centre for the Working Environment in Denmark, wrote.Jobs scoring high, included those in construction; manual labour, such as carpentry, masonry, painting and plumbing; cleaning; and manufacturing industries. Periods of sick leave, unemployment, and disability pension payments were recorded for each participant for the next four years until 2017.The final analysis is based on workers aged 30, 40, and 50. It showed that more men than women were categorised as having very physically demanding jobs according to the JEM score. Men in this group were, on average, nearly three years younger than their peers in physically undemanding jobs. Women, on the other hand, were around 10 months older. For both sexes, a physically demanding job was strongly associated with shorter working life expectancy, and more sick leaves and unemployment compared with a physically undemanding job.At the age of 30, working life would be expected to last almost 32 years for men with physically demanding jobs and nearly 34 years for men with physically undemanding jobs. Among women, the equivalent figures were just over 29.5 years and nearly 33 years, respectively.In all, a 30-year-old woman would be expected to have three fewer years of working life; 11 more months of sick leave; and 16 more months of unemployment, the analysis showed.The equivalent figures for a man would be two years; and 12 and eight months, respectively.The researchers point out that there are likely to be other factors in the ability to work, which were not accounted for in this analysis, including lifestyle factors, such as obesity and smoking, as well as long term conditions.--IANSbu/in

London, Taking multiple courses of antibiotics within a short span of time may do people more harm than good, suggests new research which discovered an association between the number of prescriptions for antibiotics and a higher risk of hospital admissions. Patients who have had 9 or more antibiotic prescriptions for common infections in the previous three years are 2.26 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection in three or more months, said the researchers. Patients who had two antibiotic prescriptions were 1.23 times more likely, patients who had three to four prescriptions 1.33 times more likely and patients who had five to eight 1.77 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection. "We don't know why this is, but overuse of antibiotics might kill the good bacteria in the gut (microbiota) and make us more susceptible to infections, for example," said Professor Tjeerd van Staa from the University of Manchester in Britain. The study, published in the journal BMC Medicine, is based on the data of two million patients in England and Wales. The patient records, from 2000 to 2016, covered common infections such as upper respiratory tract, urinary tract, ear and chest infections and excluded long term conditions such as cystic fibrosis and chronic lung disease. The risks of going to hospital with another infection were related to the number of the antibiotic prescriptions in the previous three years. A course is defined by the team as being given over a period of one or two weeks. "GPs (general physicians) care about their patients, and over recent years have worked hard to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics,""Staa said. "But it is clear GPs do not have the tools to prescribe antibiotics effectively for common infections, especially when patients already have previously used antibiotics. "They may prescribe numerous courses of antibiotics over several years, which according to our study increases the risk of a more serious infection. That in turn, we show, is linked to hospital admissions," Staa added. It not clear why hospital admissions are linked to higher prescriptions and research is needed to show what or if any biological factors exist, said the research team. "Our hope is that, however, a tool we are working for GPs, based on patient history, will be able to calculate the risks associated with taking multiple courses of antibiotics," said Francine Jury from the University of Manchester. (IANS) Read More -   India may face kidney diseases due to air pollution