Minister @DrZweliMkhize committs to uploading MAC Vaccine ADVISORIES by end of briefing. Commits to urgency and expediting availability.
#Vaccines
#nocovidmonopolies
#1Country1Plan
The Sunday that keeps getting weirder ... very odd charge against CSO groups.
— Fatima Hassan (@_HassanF) January 3, 2021
We need transparency.#1Country1Plan
Please @GovernmentZA -
get comms expert advice and support.
Now for 6.30...https://t.co/AcG6APtmsZ pic.twitter.com/UY1YMhwJRn
@tianjohnson
2.outreach / mobile, PHCs
3.vaccination centres for remote areas too.
-where is @CompComSA to review prices BEFORE? OTHERWISE PANDEMIC gouging will happen).
(NDAs with public money is shameful!)
So, we wait (not critique).
And expect 2nd Q 2021.
(Hence, deadline as I said before, was a big fat red herring...)
Who pays the COVAX balance of payment?
Where are the many women business leaders?
So we not pursuing price control or patent restrictions - phrma triumphs?
Oh my.
Why coudn't @GovernmentZA simply reply *in writing* to a letter asking these very questions from mid-Nov 2020 by @HealthJusticeIn ...major state capacity issues...
#nopandemicgouging
Over to drug companies to PROVE PRICE IS CORRECT. Share data & either way, remember Dischem/Babelegi.
Hope @HealthZA gives a briefing every 3 to 5 days until roll out is complete.
We need info, not whispers...
@GCISMedia
Big black box.
Cost: approx ZAR 2 BILL.
NO JUSTIFICATION for rich countries to hoard vaccines, 'release it'. And 'we fight behind the scenes'.
I hope @pfizer @JNJNews @aspenpharma @CiplaRSA @AstraZeneca @UniofOxford @BioNTech_Group and others are listening.
South Africans are tired of waiting, of paying too much, of being blocked.
Salute HCWs.
@HealthZA
@the_dti
Why?
We did warn. Months ago.
... seems like we did get #1country1plan through agreed upon national allocation *approach* that follows a triage system...
(Not a plan, cos I don't see it in writing, nor tabled in @ParliamentofRSA ! )
At present, slides and national presser.
☕
Help out at @HealthZA and
@SAHPRA1
Laws needed to PRICE ASSESS BEFORE WE SPEND THE MONEY.
Justify the price, or price variations. Prove it is low or no profit. And, not time bound.
More from Health
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
It\u2019s #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek \U0001f499
— myGP (@myGPapp) January 18, 2021
Here\u2019s how you can help to raise awareness:
\U0001f431 Share an image of the cat that best reflects your undercarriage/flower/bits (technical term vulva!) current look.
#\u20e3Use the Hashtag #myCat.
\U0001f46dTell and tag your friends to let them know. pic.twitter.com/8aHf96ynjT
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
![Peter McCormack [Jan/3\u279e\u20bf \U0001f511\u220e]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1524287442307723265/_59ITDbJ_normal.jpg)
