The ultimate guide to public loos: Top hygiene expert reveals why you should never touch anything, why FLUSHING is dangerous and how to avoid a nasty bug
Many of us are wary of using public loos – indeed, last year a survey of 2,000 people for a bathroom cleaning brand found that almost eight in ten of us would only venture into a public toilet if there was no alternative.
The fact is, bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella (which cause severe gastric symptoms), as well as the bug Staphylococcus aureus (which can lead to skin infections), can survive for hours – even days – on hard surfaces, while viruses linked to colds or flu may linger for up to 24 hours.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
My father died in a care home and all I got was denials and excuses
The situation at The Firs care home in Nottinghamshire, which was shut down in April, is dreadful for patients, families and staff ('How did it get to this?' What happens when care in a residential home breaks down, 7 June). But the Care Quality Commission (CQC) is not the only body to blame for failings like this. It can't investigate individual complaints – this is mostly down to the local government and social care ombudsman (LGSCO), but also the parliamentary and health service ombudsman (PHSO). It depends on who funds the care; in theory the same care home could be dealing with two ombudsman staff unaware of each other. Both are equally damned on Trustpilot with overwhelmingly negative reviews. My dad died two days after he had been moved to a home for palliative care. So much went wrong on that awful day, with staff who didn't care and with no involvement with any senior staff. I complained to the manager and then the company headquarters. I received many denials and excuses, one of which was so clearly untrue that I thought I'd caught them out. I told the PHSO everything. I waited for eight months, only to have every ridiculous excuse parroted back to me as a reason for not investigating. I don't believe the LGSCO would have been any better. The care home company knew I had complained and had time to prepare for an investigation, which never came. All I did by complaining was show what it could get away with. Other homes in the same organisation have been graded as inadequate or requiring improvement, with poor staffing levels and attitudes to patients especially marked. So criticise the CQC, but don't spare either and address supplied Your article made me cry. My parents (90 and 92) have, since February, suffered deterioration in their health such that both now need full-time care. Three of the four local-authority-provided 'rehab' places have so far been utterly woeful. The home that my father is currently living in is disastrous for a person in his position. My sister and I are desperately trying to sort an alternative for him, but it takes time and every day he is there is a day too long. And as for whistleblowing, we tried that when a carer was verbally abusive to my mother. The difficulties we are having moving her because of her record of 'very difficult behaviour' are not and address supplied
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Lucy Letby supporter claims neo-natal unit where baby serial killer worked was 'not fit for purpose'
The Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit was 'not fit for purpose' before Lucy Letby started murdering babies, a former nurse who worked there has claimed. Michele Worden said redundancies led to a loss of senior staff and plumbing issues created a 'perfect storm' for care failings. The former advanced nurse practitioner left the Countess after being made redundant in 2007, four years before Letby started working and eight years before her killing spree began. She told the Nursing Times that when the unit was downgraded in around 2006 and stopped caring for very premature babies under 27 weeks, senior nurses were replaced with junior staff who were asked to care for infants 'above their capabilities [and] training.' She said: 'It wasn't just the neonatal unit that wasn't fit for purpose, the whole maternity and paediatric and gynaecology… was not fit for purpose. 'The problems with the sewage and blocked sinks were not just [on] the neonatal unit, it was on the labour ward, it was all over.' Ms Worden said she believed the situation at the Countess of Chester was 'no different' to other NHS hospitals where maternity scandals have been uncovered in recent years. 'Hopefully Lucy will be exonerated,' she said. 'Chester is no different than Shrewsbury, Nottingham, Morecambe Bay. Women and children's healthcare has never been a high priority.' Letby, 38, is serving 15 whole life terms after being convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of seven more, including one baby girl she tried to kill twice. Plumber Lorenzo Mansutti, estates manager at the Countess, was the only witness called by Letby in her defence at her Manchester Crown Court trial. He admitted drainage problems were a 'weekly' issue at the hospital's 50-year-old Women's and Children's Building and told the jury that he remembered an incident when raw sewage backed up into sinks in the intensive care nursery. But he said it was a 'one off' and insisted that at no point were staff unable to wash their hands because the hospital had 'backup' portable handwashing units on site. The problem was not logged as a formal incident, so no exact date for the incident could be found. Letby's trial heard that none of the seven babies who died collapsed due to a bacterial infection associated with poor sewage. Cheshire police are continuing to investigate the former nurse and last year confirmed they had questioned her in prison in connection with more baby deaths. But, following a presentation from 14 international experts in February, who claim none of the babies were murdered but died due to poor care, there has been a continued chorus of people questioning the safety of her convictions. Letby has twice applied and been refused leave to appeal, but her new legal team have submitted a file of evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in a last ditch attempt to get her convictions overturned. They claim the testimony of lead prosecution expert Dewi Evans was biased and that he changed his mind over the method of murder of one of the children murdered by Letby, a boy known as Baby C. Dr Evans has denied this and the Court of Appeal has already dismissed claims he was not suitably qualified or lacked independence. Yesterday it emerged that Dr Evans, who has been subjected to intense trolling online from Letby supporters, had been involved in an online row with one of them - an anonymous statistician who Dr Evans accused of being motivated by a sexual attraction to Letby. According to the statistician, Dr Evans wrote: 'You seem very intense, and it's not unusual for men to have the hots for pretty young blonde females. A nursing uniform is a turn-on for some by all accounts. 'I would suggest you need to get out more, find yourself an available pretty young blonde female, with/without nursing credentials. But one who doesn't go to work intent on murdering her patients.' The statistician said it was 'absurd' to say he believed Letby was innocent because she was 'blonde and pretty' and insisted he had come to that view after reviewing the transcripts of the trial.
