COVID-19 testing centre in Nantes
A medical worker administers a nasal swab to a patient at a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) testing center in Nantes, near Nantes, France, on June 30. Photo: Reuters/STEPHANE MAHE
health

France's health body warns of resurgence of COVID virus in the country

16 Comments

France's national health body has warned of a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in the country, and urged people to continue to get vaccinated to protect themselves against the virus.

The Sante Publique France (SPF) body said that during the week of Sept 5-Sept 11, there had been 186 confirmed COVID cases for every 100,000 people in France - a figure up 12% versus the previous week - representing an average of around 18,000 new cases per day.

Emer Cooke - the executive director for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) watchdog - told a Reuters Next Newsmaker interview that people in Europe should take whatever COVID-19 booster vaccine is available to them, given expectations of an autumn rise in infections.

New infections have been steadily rising since 10 days and the seven-day moving average of daily new cases reached an almost five-weeks high of 24,042 on Thursday.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The change of season and how people behave will make it easier for covid to spread in the following weeks, so calling for precautions is sensible and well timed. New versions of boosters appear to produce better immunity that will help reducing the risk from the infection and together with other simple and rational precautions this can avoid having a sudden and huge increase of cases, hospitalizations or deaths.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

@virusrex I was all for precautions before we had vaccines and the virus was more virulent... I'm wondering why are precautions still necessary? At this stage isn't the virus pretty harmless for most people?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

 I'm wondering why are precautions still necessary?

Because the disease is still much more deadly than other infectious respiratory diseases, it is not harmless and it still represents a much more important risk than for example influenza as anybody can see just by comparing the number of hospitalizations and deaths between both diseases.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Enough with these silly masks, plastic gloves and shower curtains.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

France's national health body has warned of a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in the country, and urged people to continue to get vaccinated to protect themselves against the virus.

A new wave coming soon. First Europe, then North America, and then Asia.

New versions of boosters appear to produce better immunity that will help reducing the risk from the infection and together with other simple and rational precautions this can avoid having a sudden and huge increase of cases, hospitalizations or deaths.

There is no better immunity from "the infection". And this baseless statement contradicts the article which warns of "a resurgence of COVID-19 cases" . The uptick in cases will happen. There is scientific data providing evidence . So, we have the experts, and then we have your "claim". Which will we go with?

At least the guy in the picture is wearing a mask; contrary to the WHO's advice:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

There is no better immunity from "the infection".

There is better immunity to protect from the risk coming from the infection, which is what you quoted, your obvious misrepresentation only makes it obvious you have nothing to criticize the original argument.

The uptick in cases will happen. There is scientific data providing evidence 

If the risk can be maintained low that has no importance. There is no "claim" made that contradict anything that the experts have said, that is all your wrong assumption.

At least the guy in the picture is wearing a mask; contrary to the WHO's advice:

Again making off topic and false comments to get your comments deleted? what is the point of making them in the first place if you are going to taunt the moderation by repeating the same comments that have been already removed?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

At least the guy in the picture is wearing a mask; contrary to the WHO's advice:

WHO recommends mask wearing. Check out your beloved WHO website and this thread

https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/it’s-time-to-talk-about-no-mask-anxiety

4 ( +6 / -2 )

New infections have been steadily rising since 10 days and the seven-day moving average of daily new cases reached an almost five-weeks high of 24,042 on Thursday.

This has been the trend---rising rates in Europe will be seen in the US 4-6 weeks later, and then the same pattern will occur in Asia. Keep an eye on France's numbers.

Elvis is hereToday  05:11 am JST

WHO recommends mask wearing. Check out your beloved WHO website and this thread 

https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/it’s-time-to-talk-about-no-mask-anxiety

That's right--as I have said, the WHO corrected their earlier mistaken advice.

That's a good thing, isn't it? At the same time, lucky for millions of Asians, they listened to the global experts giving the correct advice early on, and as a result millions of lives were saved (throw in the lockdowns China employed).

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

That's right--as I have said, the WHO corrected their earlier mistaken advice.

The advice from scientific authorities can only be based on scientific evidence, which is why it could not be different when the actual evidence supported the advice of prioritizing mask use for symptomatic patients,

You have never brought the supposed evidence you have that the evidence pointed to efficacy of masks for the general asymptomatic population, you only repeat you have it, but apparently nobody else but you can see it. That means it is you who is mistaken, not the CDC, EMA, WHO, Japanese medical association, etc

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The advice from scientific authorities can only be based on scientific evidence, which is why it could not be different when the actual evidence supported the advice of prioritizing mask use for symptomatic patients,

Except the advice to wear masks in Asia was given by medical authorities, and agreed to by US medical authorities, and because of the vast medical evidence gathered over the years such as the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s, and more specifically Japan's influenza readiness plan, the medical authorities in Japan, for example, gave the advice to wear the masks at the beginning of the crisis. There is no denying this fact.

The WHO gave conflicting advice. That is a fact. When Japanese medical authorities beat the WHO to the punch with the correct advice, that makes sense--the WHO is an agency.

You have never brought the supposed evidence you have that the evidence 

Sure have.

Let's see the supposed evidence that you claim concluded it was not medically beneficial for the public to wear masks to reduce Covid infections before March 2020.

Elvis is hereToday  07:25 am JST

It recorded 712 new cases on Saturday - about 70% of the total for China.

Incredibly low numbers. Have to give China credit for its success.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Except the advice to wear masks in Asia was given by medical authorities, and agreed to by US medical authorities

Still trying to misrepresent advice done without scientific evidence as if it was generalized at the beginning of the pandemic? that is still false. And you again produce zero references to prove this evidence existed, which means you can't criticize scientific authorities for not recommending something that is not scientifically based.

and because of the vast medical evidence gathered over the years such as the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s, and more specifically Japan's influenza readiness plan, the medical authorities in Japan, for example, gave the advice to wear the masks at the beginning of the crisis. There is no denying this fact.

Which actually disproves your mistaken opinion, because the recommendation based on that evidence is clearly about using masks for symptomatic patients, and prioritizing its use in hospitals, which is exactly the same advice the WHO gave, you just proved that your criticism is wrong.

Sure have.

Not even once, as sure to prove as you are not doing it here either.

As long as you can't bring that evidence it means you are still wrong, absence of that evidence means you can't validly criticize the experts of the world for not making recommendations that require that evidence.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Incredibly low numbers. Have to give China credit for its success.

Can't agree. The numbers are faked as you know. 70% is hardly low for zero policy.

In the capital Beijing, more than 21 million residents are required to queue for PCR tests every three days to access public buildings and even corner shops.

Any news story on China is bloated with such details. And worse. The zero policy is not a success and only a sadistic mind could honestly say so

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Still trying to misrepresent advice done without scientific evidence as if it was generalized at the beginning of the pandemic? that is still false. And you again produce zero references to prove this evidence existed, which means you can't criticize scientific authorities for not recommending something that is not scientifically based.

Which actually disproves your mistaken opinion, because the recommendation based on that evidence is clearly about using masks for symptomatic patients, and prioritizing its use in hospitals, which is exactly the same advice the WHO gave, you just proved that your criticism is wrong.

Not even once, as sure to prove as you are not doing it here either.

As long as you can't bring that evidence it means you are still wrong, absence of that evidence means you can't validly criticize the experts of the world for not making recommendations that require that evidence.

So you don't have the supposed evidence that you claim concluded it was not medically beneficial for the public to wear masks to reduce Covid infections before March 2020.

Sums that one up.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So you don't have the supposed evidence that you claim concluded it was not medically beneficial for the public to wear masks to reduce Covid infections before March 2020.

The one that needs evidence for your claim is you, because for scientific institutions to be wrong not making an advice it absolutely requires that evidence to be available. If no evidence for or against is available, that means they are still right for making those advices based on the evidence available from before the pandemic and that you already referenced.

So by repeatedly replying without bringing that evidence you said you had, even when challenged, it means you are implicitly accepting your assertion is false and that evidence do not exist, thus making the recommendations made completely justified.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You admit that you can't provide evidence then, right?

Why quote something that you are not going to read? having no specific evidence for covid and mask use means the recommendation can only be based on the previous evidence, which means the advice is justified.

You on the other hand said you had evidence that proved at the time the recommendations were wrong, but then keep replying without providing that evidence, That means you accept your statement is false and there was no such information available then

Where is that evidence you said you have? My whole point is that there was no evidence to modify the recommendations.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

You admit that you can't provide evidence then, right?

You admit China's Corona numbers are fudged?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites