Experts warn Glastonbury could be high risk for measles outbreak
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has warned that festivals, including Glastonbury, are high-risk environments for measles spread due to ongoing outbreaks across England.
Measles cases are primarily affecting unvaccinated children under 10, but cases have also been reported in young people and adults.
Dr. Alasdair Wood of UKHSA South West urges festival-goers to ensure they are fully vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and to contact their GP for an appointment if needed.
The UKHSA is also seeing an increase in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among young people and advises early testing.
Measles cases are rising globally, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) reporting a significant increase in Europe, and outbreaks have been seen in several European countries, prompting the UKHSA to urge vaccination before travelling abroad.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
UKHSA issues urgent health warning after walking outdoors
People have been urged to look out for ticks, small creatures that can carry a number of infections. Brits have been issued an urgent warning to take care when walking outdoors this summer due to a serious risk to health. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has shared guidance on how to stay safe from ticks. Ticks are tiny, spider-like creatures that live in undergrowth and latch on to animals including humans when they walk through long grass. They are becoming more prevalent in parts of the UK, mainly due to increasing numbers of deer. While feeding, they can transmit viruses and infections that cause disease, with the most common being Lyme disease. In a post made to X, the UKHSA said: 'Summer's a great time to get outside, but ticks love the outdoors too. 'If you're walking through grassy or wooded areas, take a look at our guidance to help you stay safe and be tick aware.' In an infographic, it explained what to do if you find a tick on your body. What to do if you've been bitten by a tick 'Remove ticks as soon as you find them,' it said. 'If you have a tick removal device, follow its instructions or use a pair of fine-tipped tweezers.' Next you need to grasp the tick 'as close to the skin as you can'. The UKHSA explained: 'Pull upwards firmly, making sure all of the tick is removed.' You then need to clean the bite area with soap and water, and keep an eye on it for a few weeks in case of 'any changes' The health authority warned: 'Look out for a spreading bullseye rash, which is a common symptom of Lyme disease three to 30 days after being bitten. 'If you become unwell, for example with a spreading circular rash, flu-like symptoms, nerve pain or a droop on one or both sides of the face within a few weeks of a tick bite, call your GP practice or NHS 111.' Other potential symptoms of Lyme disease include: A high temperature, or feeling hot and shivery Headache Muscle and joint pain Tiredness and loss of energy The NHS warns that some people who are diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease continue to have symptoms, like tiredness, aches and loss of energy, that can last for years. 'These symptoms are often compared to fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome,' it says. 'It's not clear why this happens to some people and not others. This means there's also no agreed treatment.' You should speak to a doctor if your symptoms come back, or do not improve, after treatment with antibiotics. To reduce the risk of being bitten by a tick in the first place, the NHS recommends you:
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Thousands of NHS patients ‘to be denied breakthrough Alzheimer's drugs'
Breakthrough drugs that slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease will reportedly be refused for use on the NHS this week in a blow to thousands of patients. The two drugs, Lecanemab and donanemab, slow down the decline in Alzheimer's patients' ability to carry out daily activities. The drugs' success in halting the progression of Alzheimer's was heralded as a 'new era' by campaigners and researchers. However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) is expected to refuse to recommend them on the NHS, according to The Sunday Times. The regulator has already issued two decisions, one in October last year and another in March, saying they would not recommend the drugs for use on the NHS. A final decision will be published on Thursday. Both drugs already have UK drug licences, making them available privately. It is estimated that around 70,000 adults in England would have been eligible for treatment if the drugs had been approved. The regulator will reportedly turn down both drugs on the grounds of cost-effectiveness, with one insider telling The Sunday Times: 'It is the end of the road for these drugs on the NHS'. Lecanemab removes build-ups of the protein beta-amyloid from the brain. Trials showed that lecanemab can slow the progression of Alzheimer's by 27 per cent over 18 months if given to someone early on in the course of their decline. Donanemab, marketed as Kisunla in the UK, teaches the body's immune cells to recognise and remove the amyloid protein, which builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. The protein build-ups are thought to be toxic to brain cells, leading to the symptoms of Alzheimer's, the Alzheimer's society has said. Lecanemab can, however, cause swelling and bleeding in the brain. In trials for Donanemab, a third of recipients experienced abnormalities in their brain scans caused by brain swelling and bleeding, NICE said. The drugs reportedly cost around £20,000 to £25,000, with the NHS being offered a lower price. Privately, the treatment costs between £60,000-80,000 per year, according to Alzheimer's Research UK. In a previous review by NICE in October 2024, director of medicines evaluation Helen Knight said: 'Donanemab could slow down cognitive decline by 4-7 months, but this is just not enough benefit to justify the additional cost to the NHS. The cost-effectiveness estimate for donanemab is five to six times above what NICE normally considers an acceptable use of NHS resources'. While the regulator said the decision would be disappointing for some, 'there are other treatments being developed'. Hilary Evans-Newton, chief executive of Alzheimer's Research UK, said the decision to turn down the drugs would be 'deeply disappointing'. She added: 'These treatments are not perfect, and we recognise the challenges they pose around cost, delivery and safety. But scientific progress is incremental, and these drugs represent a vital foundation to build on.' The regulator NICE is due to publish the final draft guidance about the two drugs on Thursday. This leaves space for the decision to be challenged and sent to a review panel before the final guidance is published.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Expert witnesses are ‘weakest link in English justice system', says wrongly convicted surgeon
David Sellu knows full well the impact an expert witness can have on the outcome of criminal case, and the lives of the people on trial. A former surgeon, Sellu spent 15 months in prison after being convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2013, following a trial that largely hinged on the evidence of medical expert witnesses brought by the prosecution. After an appeal in 2016, Sellu's conviction was quashed and the appeal judge criticised the way the expert evidence was handled, saying they 'asserted gross negligence' when this was 'a matter for [the jury] and not the experts'. 'I think I can probably say that there are many, many hundreds of people who would not be alive today had it not been for my skills and my treatment,' Sellu said. 'And yet medicine was deprived of my further input, purely on the back of a case that should never have been brought. 'It's affected my whole family, we've gone through a very difficult time. But we've come out of it all. We're carrying on as best we can.' He now speaks out about the issues with expert witnesses, particularly in cases involving medical professionals where the subjects being examined are often highly complex and expert witnesses act at the 'crucial bridge' between medicine and the law. 'My case was in 2015, it is now 2025 and I don't really believe that much has changed. It worries me that there will be miscarriages of justice from expert testimony,' Sellu said. 'As recently as the case of Lucy Letby, expert testimony is still being questioned.' Sellu was convicted over the death of a man at a private hospital in 2010 who suddenly fell ill after knee surgery. The patient's condition deteriorated due to delays to his care, which expert witnesses said amounted to gross negligence by Sellu. The exonerated doctor said he remained alarmed that there were no 'prescribed training programmes' for expert witnesses to ensure the evidence they give is unbiased, high quality and follows all legal procedure. 'There should be a benchmark that expert witnesses must achieve, because they are such an important bridge between medicine and the law in terms of being able to deliver justice,' he said. 'In my view, they are the weakest link in our justice system. They're not accredited, not properly trained, nobody really knows clearly how they're selected. And they play such a vital role in the delivery of justice that I think it's a shame that nobody has really grappled with this issue to try to get it fixed.' Expert witnesses are used in almost all criminal trials, but are particularly crucial in medical cases where a jury would struggle to understand and interpret complex terminology. They are appointed by both prosecution and defence lawyers, and although there is guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service, there is little oversight over how expert witnesses are appointed and what checks are carried out. One defence barrister said that lawyers often 'don't ask the questions' about the experts they're hiring, and 'work on the premise that people who are purporting to hold themselves out as experts, are experts'. Sellu said: 'The words 'expert witness' are a bit of a misnomer, because they're neither experts nor are they witnesses. Anybody can put themselves up as an expert witness, there's no clear accreditation. 'And they are the only people in the trial who give evidence who were not there at the time the alleged events took place – they're not witnesses, they're simply giving opinions.' In 2021 a judge asked the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate an eminent psychiatrist, Dr David Ho, who had been used by prosecutors as an expert witness in a large number of cases, after concerns were raised about him during a murder trial. In the case of a man accused of beheading his mother, who was found not guilty of manslaughter on the basis of insanity, defence lawyers said there were apparent errors in Ho's report and he allegedly refused to answer questions. Ho had concluded there was no evidence to suggest the defendant did not know what he was doing, a finding that was disputed by other consultant forensic psychiatrists. The judge said there was concerns that Ho 'had potentially lost the necessary degree of independence and objectivity, his awareness of his overriding duty to the court, and his approach to his task'. The CPS said an internal review had been carried out, and Dr Ho had not been used as an expert witness since. There have been a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice linked to inadequate medical expert evidence. Three men found guilty of murder in 1998 had their convictions quashed due to 'discredited' evidence by pathologist Dr Michael Heath, whose findings were questioned in a string of cases. Despite the concerns around the veracity of his work, he continued to practise and was under investigation by the General Medical Council at the time of his death in 2023. In the 1990s, evidence by paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow led to several wrongful convictions of mothers for murdering their babies. Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings were all exonerated after evidence by Meadows, used as an expert witness by the prosecution, was proven incorrect. He misused statistics to convince a jury it was almost impossible for more than one sudden infant death to occur in the same family, and that it was much more likely to be murder. 'There is a real danger with expert evidence, because it is elevated evidence, so when it's wrong, it can lead to wrongful convictions and that's a real concern,' said Matt Foot, co-director of Appeal, which supported Sellu's case. 'Where the problem comes, and it has happened in many miscarriages of justice, is when expert evidence is given that is biased, inappropriate, or completely unreliable. 'Experts are not there for the police or the prosecution. They can feel obliged to provide evidence in a certain way when their duty is to the court for independence rather than to any party. That's the biggest danger, I think, because that danger leads to innocent people going to prison.' Expert witnesses are often also crucial in overturning miscarriages of justice, he said, but greater regulation or oversight would be beneficial. 'When things go wrong, there is no proper record anywhere that it has happened, and that you therefore need to treat this expert with great caution,' said Foot. 'That's not part of the system. So there are no safeguards in place to stop that happening again, with the same person.'
