(LONDON) #Coronavirus Latest Report: 9am on 1 June, there have been 4,484,340 tests, with 128,437 tests on 31 May: 276,332 people have tested positive: As of 5pm on 31 May, of those tested positive in the UK, 39,045 have died including all deaths in all settings not just in hospitals @DHSCgovuk June.02: @ONS reports lowest levels in England and Wales since March, figures show #AceHealthDesk reports

#AceHealthReport – June.02: Editor says as of June.01: these are the number of tests carried out and those that were tested positive and sadly the number of deaths up to and including 17:00hrs on 31:May: God Bless Friends, Followers & Readers 🙏’s 

#Coronavirus Report: Number of #COVID19 cases and risk in the UK: As of June.01:

The number of people dying each week linked to #coronavirus has dropped to its lowest levels in England and Wales since March, figures show: The Office for National Statistics review of death certificates showed 2,589 cases where the virus was mentioned in the week ending 22 May: Overall there were nearly 12,300 deaths in that week – 2,300 more than normal at this time of the year: At the peak of the #pandemic double the number were dying than expected.

Overall, there have been 286,700 deaths this year – 51,400 above what would be expected: Some 43,800 have been attributed to coronavirus.

Nick Stripe, of the ONS, said despite the number of overall deaths falling, we were effectively seeing the same number of deaths we would expect in winter: He also said there were considerable regional variations with the north east currently seeing the highest rates of excess deaths.

#AceHealthDesk report …………..Published: June.02: 2020: 

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com 

(LONDON) #Coronavirus ONS Unemployment Report: A measure of the number of people claiming unemployment benef its in Britain leapt to its highest level since 1996 in April, the first full month of the government ’s #coronavirus lockdown, data published on Tuesday showed #AceFinanceDesk report

#AceFinanceReport – May.19: “The claimant count rose by 856,500 — the biggest ever month-on-month jump — to 2.097 million, a 69% increase, the Office for National Statistics said.” The surge would have been even sharper without a government programme to pay 80% of the wages of workers put on temporary leave by their employers, who do not count towards the unemployment total:

#Coronavirus ONS Unemployment Report: Claimant count rose by 856,500 to 2,097-million in first month of lockdown according to data provided on Tuesday:

https://t.co/51lAgp5zcv

” The ONS said emergency changes to Britain’s welfare system meant the claimant count number included more people who were still actually in work than normal, but the scale of the rise in claims showed the hit to the labour market.”

“ While only covering the first weeks of restrictions, our figures show COVID-19 is having a major impact on the labour market,” ONS Deputy National Statistician Jonathan Athow said “

“A Reuters poll of economists had produced a median forecast for a leap of 676,500 in the claimant count, with forecasts ranging widely from just over 56,000 to as high as 1.5 million.”

Tej Parikh, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, said the government’s wage subsidy scheme was holding off some job losses for now but it was not clear how firms would react when they are required to help fund it from August.

““Many companies will still be in the middle of a cashflow crisis, and will struggle with any cost increases. Government faces an onerous task in winding down the scheme without causing too much pain,” he said.”

#AceFinanceDesk report ……………Published: May.19: 2020:

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com

(WORLDWIDE) FEATURED: #Coronavirus EFF Report: Governments Shouldn’t Use “Centralized” Proximity Tracking Technology As This Can Lead To Privacy & Exposure Of Data To Third Parties & Decentralised Apps Should Be Considered Looking Towards The Future Use Of Health Care Data #AceHealthDesk report

#AceHealthReport – May.17: Companies and governments across the world are building and deploying a dizzying number of systems and apps to fight #COVID19 Many groups have converged on using Bluetooth-assisted proximity tracking for the purpose of exposure notification. Even so, there are many ways to approach the problem, and dozens of proposals have emerged:

 #Coronavirus Report: Centralised OR Decentralised Apps Used To Track & Trace Vary According To How Data Is Shared To Third-Parties Now & In The Future EFF.Org/

One way to categorize them is based on how much trust each proposal places in a central authority. In more “centralized” models, a single entity—like a health organization, a government, or a company—is given special responsibility for handling and distributing user information. This entity has privileged access to information that regular users and their devices do not. In “decentralized” models, on the other hand, the system doesn’t depend on a central authority with special access. A decentralized app may share data with a server, but that data is made available for everyone to see—not just whoever runs the server. 

Both centralized and decentralised models can claim to make a slew of privacy guarantees: But centralized models all rest on a dangerous assumption: that a “trusted” authority will have access to vast amounts of sensitive data and choose not to misuse it. As we’ve seen, time and again, that kind of trust doesn’t often survive a collision with reality. Carefully constructed decentralized models are much less likely to harm civil liberties. This post will go into more detail about the distinctions between these two kinds of proposals, and weigh the benefits and pitfalls of each.

Centralized Models

There are many different proximity tracking proposals that can be considered “centralized,” but generally, it means a single “trusted” authority knows things that regular users don’t. Centralized proximity tracking proposals are favored by many governments and public health authorities. A central server usually stores private information on behalf of users, and makes decisions about who may have been exposed to infection. The central server can usually learn which devices have been in contact with the devices of infected people, and may be able to tie those devices to real-world identities. 

For example, a European group called PEPP-PT has released a proposal called NTK. In NTK, a central server generates a private key for each device, but keeps the keys to itself. This private key is used to generate a set of ephemeral IDs for each user. Users get their ephemeral IDs from the server, then exchange them with other users. When someone tests positive for COVID-19, they upload the set of ephemeral IDs from other people they’ve been in contact with (plus a good deal of metadata). The authority links those IDs to the private keys of other people in its database, then decides whether to reach out to those users directly. The system is engineered to prevent users from linking ephemeral IDs to particular people, while allowing the central server to do exactly that.

Some proposals, like Inria’s ROBERT, go to a lot of trouble to be pseudonymous—that is, to keep users’ real identities out of the central database. This is laudable, but not sufficient, since pseudonymous IDs can often be tied back to real people with a little bit of effort. Many other centralized proposals, including NTK, don’t bother. Singapore’s TraceTogether and Australia’s COVIDSafe apps even require users to share their phone numbers with the government so that health authorities can call or text them directly. Centralized solutions may collect more than just contact data, too: some proposals have users upload the time and location of their contacts as well.

Decentralized Models

In a “decentralized” proximity tracking system, the role of a central authority is minimized. Again, there are a lot of different proposals under the “decentralized” umbrella. In general, decentralized models don’t trust any central actor with information that the rest of the world can’t also see. There are still privacy risks in decentralized systems, but in a well-designed proposal, those risks are greatly reduced.

EFF recommends the following characteristics in decentralized proximity tracking efforts:

The goal should be exposure notification. That is, an automated alert to the user that they may have been infected by proximity to a person with the virus, accompanied by advice to that user about how to obtain health services. The goal should not be automated delivery to the government or anyone else of information about the health or person-to-person contacts of individual people.

A user’s ephemeral IDs should be generated and stored on their own device. The ephemeral IDs can be shared with devices the user comes into contact with, but nobody should have a database mapping sets of IDs to particular people. 

When a user learns they are infected, as confirmed by a physician or health authority, it should be the user’s absolute prerogative to decide whether or not to provide any information to the system’s shared server. 

When a user reports ill, the system should transmit from the user’s device to the system’s shared server the minimum amount of data necessary for other users to learn their exposure risk. For example, they may share either the set of ephemeral IDs they broadcast, or the set of IDs they came into contact with, but not both.

No single entity should know the identities of the people who have been potentially exposed by proximity to an infected person. This means that the shared server should not be able to “push” warnings to at-risk users; rather, users’ apps must “pull” data from the central server without revealing their own status, and use it to determine whether to notify their user of risk. For example, in a system where ill users report their own ephemeral IDs to a shared server, other users’ apps should regularly pull from the shared server a complete set of the ephemeral IDs of ill users, and then compare that set to the ephemeral IDs already stored on the app because of proximity to other users.  

Ephemeral IDs should not be linkable to real people or to each other. Anyone who gathers lots of ephemeral IDs should not be able to tell whether they come from the same person.

Decentralized models don’t have to be completely decentralized. For example, public data about which ephemeral IDs correspond to devices that have reported ill may be hosted in a central database, as long as that database is accessible to everyone. No blockchains need to be involved. Furthermore, most models require users to get authorization from a physician or health authority before reporting that they have COVID-19. This kind of “centralization” is necessary to prevent trolls from flooding the system with fake positive reports.

Apple and Google’s exposure notification API is an example of a (mostly) decentralized system. Keys are generated on individual devices, and nearby phones exchange ephemeral IDs. When a user tests positive, they can upload their private keys—now called “diagnosis keys”—to a publicly accessible database. It doesn’t matter if the database is hosted by a health authority or on a peer-to-peer network; as long as everyone can access it, the contact tracing system functions effectively.

What Are the Trade-Offs?

There are benefits and risks associated with both models. However, for the most part, centralized models benefit governments, and the risks fall on users.

Centralized models make more data available to whoever sets themselves up as the controlling authority, and they could potentially use that data for far more than contact tracing. The authority has access to detailed logs of everyone that infected people came into contact with, and it can easily use those logs to construct detailed social graphs that reveal how people interact with one another. This is appealing to some health authorities, who would like to use the data gathered by these tools to do epidemiological research or measure the impact of interventions. But personal data collected for one purpose should not be used for another (no matter how righteous) without the specific consent of the data subjects. Some decentralized proposals, like DP-3T, include ways for users to opt-in to sharing certain kinds of data for epidemiological studies. The data shared in that way can be de-identified and aggregated to minimize risk.

More important, the data collected by proximity tracking apps isn’t just about COVID—it’s really about human interactions. A database that tracks who interacts with whom could be extremely valuable to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Governments might use it to track who interacts with dissidents, and employers might use it to track who interacts with union organizers. It would also make an attractive target for plain old hackers. And history has shown that, unfortunately, governments don’t tend to be the best stewards of personal data.

Centralization means that the authority can use contact data to reach out to exposed people directly. Proponents argue that notifications from public health authorities will be more effective than exposure notification from apps to users. But that claim is speculative. Indeed, more people may be willing to opt-in to a decentralized proximity tracking system than a centralized one. Moreover, the privacy intrusion of a centralized system is too high.

Even in an ideal, decentralized model, there’s some degree of unavoidable risk of infection unmasking: that when someone reports they are sick, everyone they’ve been in contact with (and anyone with enough Bluetooth beacons) can theoretically learn the fact that they are sick. This is because lists of infected ephemeral IDs are shared publicly. Anyone with a Bluetooth device can record the time and place they saw a particular ephemeral ID, and when that ID is marked as infected, they learn when and where they saw the ID. In some cases this may be enough information to determine who it belonged to. 

Some centralized models, like ROBERT, claim to eliminate this risk. In ROBERT’s model, users upload the list of IDs they have encountered to the central authority. If a user has been in contact with an infected person, the authority will tell them, “You have been potentially exposed,” but not when or where. This is similar to the way traditional contact tracing works, where health authorities interview infected people and then reach out directly to those they’ve been in contact with. In truth, ROBERT’s model makes it less convenient to learn who’s infected, but not impossible. 

Automatic systems are easy to game. If a bad actor only turns on Bluetooth when they’re near a particular person, they’ll be able to learn whether their target is infected. If they have multiple devices, they can target multiple people. Actors with more technical resources could more effectively  exploit the system. It’s impossible to solve the problem of infection unmasking completely—and users need to understand that before they choose to share their status with any proximity app. Meanwhile, it’s easy to avoid the privacy risks involved with granting a central authority privileged access to our data.

Conclusion

EFF remains wary of proximity tracking apps. It is unclear how much they will help; at best, they will supplement tried-and-tested disease-fighting techniques like widespread testing and manual contact tracing. We should not pin our hopes on a techno-solution. And with even the best-designed apps, there is always risk of misuse of personal information about who we’ve been in contact with as we go about our days.

One point is clear: governments and health authorities should not turn to centralized models for automatic exposure notification. Centralized systems are unlikely to be more effective than decentralized alternatives. They will create massive new databases of human behavior that are going to be difficult to secure, and more difficult to destroy once this crisis is over.

#AceHealthDesk report ……………..Published May 12, 2020 at 11:10PM

#acenewsdesk

(LONDON) #Coronavirus Report: Economy is unlikely to have a quick bounce back as it recovers from its #pandemic shutdown which could have wiped more than 30% off output last month, the head of the country’s b udget forecasting office said on Sunday but what protections do employers and employees have to adhere to in the workplace under change of law #AceHealthDesk reports

#AceHealthReport – May.17: “Robert Chote, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), said April was probably the bottom of the crash as the government is now moving to gradually ease its lockdown restrictions.” Reuters Business reports: https://t.co/ev8JYUOhIE

#Coronavirus Report: Returning to work as lockdown lifted but after the law was changed to allow extra powers during the #pandemic what does this mean to employers and employees Now !

Published Monday, May 11, 2020: By House of Common Law

Has the law changed?

No, and the Prime Minister’s announcement does not indicate that there will be fundamental changes to the law at this stage.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, and the equivalent devolved legislation, make it an offence for a person to leave or be out of their home without a “reasonable excuse”. It is already a reasonable excuse to go to work if work cannot be done from home. This is not limited to ‘key workers’.

The Regulations also require businesses in certain sectors to close their premises except for certain activities. The Prime Minister did not suggest any immediate lifting of these restrictions, although he said shops may open in June and parts of the hospitality industry may open in July 2020.

What health and safety measures must employers take?

Employers already have a range of health and safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and secondary legislation.

The Government guidance will not take the place of legislation. It would simply give guidance to employers on how they can fulfil their health and safety obligations in the context of Covid-19. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) notes that employers who follow guidance will “normally be doing enough to comply with the law.” However, it is ultimately for employers to assess and comply with their legal duties.

Health and safety legislation sets out a range of obligations that are relevant in the context of Covid-19. These include:

  • Carrying out risk assessments for coronavirus-related risks;
  • Setting up safe systems of work, informed by the risk assessment;
  • Providing information about health and safety risks;
  • Cleaning and ventilating the workplace;
  • Preventing, or adequately controlling, exposure to infectious diseases or, failing that, providing suitable PPE.

A number of organisations have published guidance on health and safety and returning to work, including Cloisters chambers and the TUC. Maternity Action has also published guidance on the specific protections for pregnant workers.

Can workers refuse to go to work?

All workers have an obligation to follow lawful and reasonable instructions given by their employers. However, under Employment Rights Act 1996an employee cannot suffer a detriment (e.g. loss of pay) or be dismissed if they leave or refuse to attend the workplace because they believe that there is a serious and imminent danger that they cannot reasonably avoid. Employees are also protected if they take reasonable steps to protect themselves or others from imminent danger.

The term ‘danger’ has been interpreted broadly. What matters is whether the employee reasonably believed there was a danger, regardless of whether the employer disagreed. An employee’s right to take steps to protect ‘others’ is not limited to other workers.

Whether, in the current context, an employee could refuse to attend the workplace will depend on the facts. An Employment Tribunal would be likely to give due weight to an employer complying with Government health and safety guidance. It is also possible that other factors, such the risk from taking public transport or a worker living with clinically vulnerable people, could be relevant.

Barristers including Schona Jolly QC, Stuart Brittenden and Gus Bakerhave written about how these rules could apply in the context of Covid-19.

What about workers with caring responsibilities?

The Prime Minister said that pupils might be able to begin returning to school from June. He suggested the process will be phased, with certain year groups restarting school before others.

There is no statutory right for workers to refuse to go to work because of caring responsibilities. While employees do have a right to a ‘reasonable amount’ of time off for dependents, this is only available for unexpected emergencies and is unpaid. It may be possible for workers in this position to ask to be furloughed or to take annual leave. As childcare responsibilities disproportionately fall on women, there may also be questions about indirect sex discrimination.

Barrister Rachel Crasnow QC has written about what considerations may need to be made for working parents.

Can employers keep workers on furlough?

While the Prime Minister has said that workers should be “encouraged” to go to work he did not suggest that the rules on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme have changed. Under the CJRS, employers can furlough workers and claim for 80% of their wages (up to £2,500 per month) from HMRC. The Scheme is set to last until at least the end of June 2020. Employers can furlough employees because of a “circumstance arising as a result of coronavirus”.

Employers whose work has reduced may choose to keep some or all of its workforce on furlough. However, this is a decision for the employer. An employer can instruct a worker to return to work provided it is in accordance with the employment contract and any furlough agreement.

#AceHealthDesk report ………….Published: May.17: 2020:

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com

(CINCINNATI) CBP Report: Agents seized a shipment of ‘ disinfecting wipes ‘ from Canada to a doctor to Barbados that smugglers that contained Marijuana #AceNewsDesk reports

#AceNewsReport – May.11: As the #Coronavirus continues to affect people’s lives, more and more people are purchasing cleaning supplies online: However, smugglers are using this #pandemic to conceal nefarious activities:

CBP Report: Officers in Cincinnati Seize Disinfecting Wipes Containing 4Lbs of Marijuana

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in Cincinnati seized a shipment of disinfecting wipes that contained a little bit more than what you can find on your store shelf: On May 6, 2020 CBP Officers inspected a shipment arriving from Canada and heading to a doctor in Barbados: Officers held the package for inspection based on their experience, x-ray anomalies and a drug detector canine alerted to the parcel. Inside officers found disinfecting wipe canisters and other cleaning products. However, inside those canisters and other packages was four pounds of Marijuana:

“The dedication and vigilance of our officers at our express consignment facilities continues to prevent a substantial amount of drugs from reaching their destination,” said Richard Gillespie, Port Director, Cincinnati: “This is another excellent example of what U.S. Customs and Border Protection does each and every day.”

CBP officers screen international travelers and cargo and search for illicit narcotics, unreported currency, weapons, counterfeit consumer goods, prohibited agriculture, and other illicit products that could potentially harm the American public, U.S. businesses, and our nation’s safety and economic vitality:

CBP seized an average of 3,707 pounds of illicit narcotics every day during 2019 across the United States:

#AceNewsDesk report ………..Published: May.11: 2020:

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com

(WORLDWIDE) #Coronavirus Vaccine Trials Report: Scientists across the world in a search for a vaccine are looking at deliberately infecting people with #COVID19 as an answer in vaccine development and calling it ethically justified despite the potential risks to volunteers according to new #WHO guidance #AceHealthDesk report

#AceHealthReport – May.09: Controversial trials in which volunteers are intentionally infected with Covid-19 could accelerate vaccine development, according to the World Health Organization, which has released new guidance on how the approach could be ethically justified despite the potential dangers for participants: So-called challenge trials are a mainstream approach in vaccine development and have been used in malaria, typhoid and flu, but there are treatments available for these diseases if a volunteer becomes severely ill. For #Covid19 , a safe dose of the virus has not been established and there are no failsafe treatments if things go wrong:

#Coronavirus Report: #WHO conditionally backs #Covid19 vaccine trials that infect people ‘ Challenge’ studies would deliberately give #coronavirus to healthy volunteers Hannah Devlin – Last modified on Fri 8 May 2020 20.30 BST: Guardian.Com/

Scientists, however, increasingly agree that such trials should be considered, and the WHO is the latest body to indicate conditional support for the idea: “There’s this emerging consensus among everyone who has thought about this seriously,” said Prof Nir Eyal, the director of Rutgers University’s Center for Population-Level Bioethics in the US.

The prospect of infecting healthy individuals with a potentially deadly pathogen may sound counterintuitive, but according to Eyal the risk of death from Covid-19 for someone in their 20s is around one in 3,000 – similar to the risk for live kidney donation: In this case, the potential benefits would extend not to a single individual, but to thousands or millions who could be protected by a vaccine………………..“Once you give it thought, it is surprisingly easier to approve than dispatching volunteers as part-time medical workers and other practices that we’ve already accepted,” he said.

In new guidance issued this week, the WHO said that well-designed challenge studies could accelerate Covid-19 vaccine development and also make it more likely that the vaccines ultimately deployed will be effective: The WHO lists eight criteria that would need to be met for the approach to be ethically justified, including restricting participation to healthy people aged 18-30 and fully informed consent. Strikingly, the guidelines do not rule out challenge trials in the absence of an effective treatment, instead stating that the risk could fall “within acceptable upper limits” for such research: “The big news is that WHO doesn’t say challenge trials are forbidden. It specifies reasonable steps on how they can be deployed,” said Eyal.

Vaccines are typically tested using a large group of people whose infection rates are compared with a separate group of unvaccinated controls: Waiting for enough people to be exposed to an illness, however, can take months and require thousands of participants. In a fast-moving pandemic situation, there is a risk of trials grinding to a standstill as infection rates fall in some regions. Challenge trials sidestep this problem, allowing efficacy to be established within weeks using just 100 or so volunteers.

A safe dose for Covid-19 would need to be established – enough to cause illness, but not severe illness, which could be a very fine line – through initial dose escalation studies: Such studies would need to be conducted in secure facilities to avoid unintentionally infecting anyone outside the trial and would pose uncertain levels of risk to participants.

Prof Andrew Pollard, who is leading the trial of the vaccine developed by the team at the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, said there is “huge interest” in the possibility of challenge trials among those working on vaccines against coronavirus: “At the moment, because we don’t have a rescue therapy we have to approach challenge studies extremely cautiously,” said Pollard. “But I don’t think it should be ruled out because, particularly in a situation where it’s very difficult to assess some of the new vaccines coming along because there’s not much disease around, it could be one of the ways we could get that answer more quickly.”

Others are more cautious and say it would be impossible to launch such a trial in the absence of robust treatments…..

#AceHealthDesk report …………Published: May.09: 2020:

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com

(LOS ANGELES, Calif.) Coronavirus Report: Los Alamos National Scientists Say a Now-Dominant Strain of the #Coronavirus Appears To Be More Contagious Than Original: The new strain appeared in February in Europe, migrated quickly to the East Coast of the United States and has been the dominant strain across the world since mid-March, the scientists wrote #AceHealthDesk report

#AceHealthReport – May.05: Scientists have identified a new strain of the coronavirus that has become dominant worldwide and appears to be more contagious than the versions that spread in the early days of the #COVID19 pandemic, according to a new study led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory:

#Coronavirus Report: Scientists say non-dominant strain of #coronavirus appears more contagious than original and a large-scale: Drug Repositioning Survey for SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals:

From a report: In addition to spreading faster, it may make people vulnerable to a second infection after a first bout with the disease, the report warned: The 33-page report was posted Thursday on BioRxiv, a website that researchers use to share their work before it is peer reviewed, an effort to speed up collaborations with scientists working on COVID-19 vaccines or treatments:

That research has been largely based on the genetic sequence of earlier strains and might not be effective against the new one: The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus, which allow it to enter human respiratory cells.

The report’s authors said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain: Wherever the new strain appeared, it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan, China, and within weeks it was the only strain that was prevalent in some nations, according to the report.

The new strain’s dominance over its predecessors demonstrates that it is more infectious, according to the report, though exactly why is not yet known:
#AceHealthDesk report …………………Published on May 05, 2020 at 07:45PM

Editor says #AceNewsDesk reports are provided at https://t.me/acenewsdaily and all our posts, links can be found at here Live Feeds https://acenewsroom.wordpress.com/ and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and free help and guidance tips on your PC software or need help & guidance from our experts AcePCHelp.WordPress.Com