Latest news with #Bekker
Boston Globe
27-05-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
A new cholera outbreak in Sudan has killed over 170 people in a week, officials say
On Saturday, Sudan's Health Minister Haitham Ibrahim said the increase in cholera cases just in the Khartoum region has been estimated to average 600 to 700 per week over the past four weeks. Bekker said MSF's treatment centers in Omdurman are overwhelmed and that the 'scenes are disturbing.' Advertisement 'Many patients are arriving too late to be saved,' she said. 'We don't know the true scale of the outbreak, and our teams can only see a fraction of the full picture.' She called for a united response, including water, sanitation and hygiene programs and more treatment facilities. In March, MSF said that 92 people had died of cholera in Sudan's White Nile State, where 2,700 people had contracted the disease since late February. The World Health Organization said that the water-borne disease is a fast-developing and highly contagious infection that causes diarrhea and leads to severe dehydration and possible death within hours when not treated. The disease is transmitted through the ingestion of contaminated food or water. Advertisement The outbreak is the latest crisis for Sudan, which was plunged into a war more than two years ago, when tensions between the Sudanese army and its rival paramilitary Rapid Support Forces group, or RSF, exploded with street battles in Khartoum that quickly spread across the country. Since then, at least 20,000 people have been reported killed, though the number is likely far higher, and more than 14 million have been displaced and forced from their homes. Sudan has also been engulfed by what the United Nations says is the world's largest humanitarian crisis, and disease outbreaks, famine and atrocities have mounted as the African country entered its third year of war. Last week, the Sudanese military said it had regained control of the Greater Khartoum area from the paramilitary forces. Ibrahim, the health minister, attributed the cholera surge to the return of many Sudanese to the Khartoum region — people who had fled their homes to escape the fighting and are now coming back. Their returns have strained the city's dwindling water resources, he said.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
British Columbia woman says her 'animal instincts' saved her from a $28K paving scam — here are the red flags
Tracy Bekker, a Canadian business owner in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, almost got scammed out of $28,000 until she told reporters that her 'animal instinct' kicked in. In late March, Bekker says she was approached by someone who worked at a paving company, who offered her a discounted price to pave her gravel lot, since he claimed he had asphalt they had left over from a previous job. I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) The initial quote: $9 per square foot. Bekker told CHEK News that a lot of the asphalt is already falling apart, and in places, not as thick as what the person at the paving company claimed it would be. The man at the paving company also kept pressuring her to increase the square footage of the job, which Bekker says was probably their way of getting more money. When she realized what was happening, she refused to pay. 'I said, 'Go ahead, we're not paying for it anyway,'' when the workers threatened to put a lien on Bekker's business and pull up all of the asphalt. The exchange escalated so much that Bekker called 911 and told them that some people were trying to scam her. 'The next thing I know is they took off so fast,' she said. The team who approached her were from Pro Style Paving, but when CHEK News reached out to the owner, Ben Ashurst, he let them know he'd been completely in the dark on the issue. Ashurst says when looking through his books, he found orders for a number of material and side jobs that he'd never authorized. He blamed an unsupervised crew for the scheme and fired two team leaders presumably involved. 'They've basically been pocketing money for themselves,' he said. Ashurst has since told Bekker she doesn't need to pay him anything. When CHEK News reporters asked if he'd admit that his crew had been scamming people, he replied that he couldn't admit to anything because he didn't know what the crew had been doing. Read more: This hedge fund legend warns US stock market will crash a stunning 80% — claims 'Armageddon' is coming. Don't believe him? He earned 4,144% during COVID. Here's 3 ways to protect yourself Sadly, these types of scams are more common than you think. So much so that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) has an entire section called 'BBB Scams HQ' devoted to informing consumers and businesses about them. Paving scams specifically have become popular enough that the BBB posted a scam alert last June, warning consumers of the shady tactics they may encounter. It starts out much like what Bekker experienced. How it usually works is a contractor will show up at your door to ask if you need any work done on your driveway or sidewalk since they're in the area. They claim they have extra supplies after completing a nearby job and offer you a discount. The scammer will usually dodge any questions you have and attempt to get you to pay a large deposit upfront. A few scenarios could happen after you pay them. One, the contractor will disappear and you can't contact them. Or, they may complete the work, but it's not good quality work. If you refuse to pay, the contractor may try to threaten a lawsuit or other similar tactics to get you to pay up. It's also common for these scammers to impersonate a legitimate company. Scammers aren't going to go away, so your best line of defense is to try and avoid being scammed in the first place. Be suspicious of any offer if someone approaches you with a similar 'deal.' Always get the person's name and see if they have proper identification. Scammers will try to pressure you to accept their offer, but slow down and reach out to the company they're supposedly working for before you make a decision. Consider looking them up on the BBB website, as legitimate ones tend to have an accredited listing. Before getting any work done, have the estimate and a detailed overview of the home improvement project in writing. You want to be sure you have a contract in place outlining the payment amount, start and completion dates, and a breakdown of the costs (including service and materials). If you believe you're a victim of a scam or being targeted for one, be sure to report it to the BBB Scam Tracker and the Federal Trade Commission. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Boston Globe
19-03-2025
- Sport
- Boston Globe
Trans girls playing girls' sports? How about a more radical idea: Abolish the gender divide in athletics altogether.
The WNBA's Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese have become household names. And college phenom Paige Bueckers looks like she could be next. For millions of women and girls in America, it's been a joy. For some, it's felt like a liberation. But in their punchy new book 'Open Play,' the academics Sheree Bekker and Stephen Mumford argue that women's sports are something else entirely: a cage. They get the appeal. They're fans themselves. But to put women and girls in their own category, the authors insist, is to limit their possibilities. Advertisement From a very young age the expectations are lower, the facilities are inferior, the rewards are fewer. And it all carries up to the professional ranks. Last year, the mean salary for WNBA players was Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Bekker, a health professor at the University of Bath, and Mumford, a philosophy professor at Durham University, both in England, offer up a radical remedy for this inequality: Abolish the gender divide at all levels of sports. Sound outlandish? They make a more compelling case than you might imagine. As they point out, the argument for a separate category of women's sports usually revolves around issues of fairness and safety. But if those are our chief concerns, then why do we divvy up athletes by gender? After all, there can be big disparities in size and strength and skill within gender. Why not separate based on those attributes instead? We already do a version of this in youth sports. An exceptional 13-year-old soccer player competing in the under-14 division is allowed to move up to the under-17 division in search of stiffer competition. Women, the authors contend, should be given the same opportunity. After Lindsey Vonn proved herself one of the greatest skiers of all time, male or female, she asked to race against men — and was denied. Advertisement Does that make any sense? Bekker and Mumford's argument can take them into some pretty provocative territory. They maintain, for instance, that the most important explanation for the gap between male and female athletic performance is the difference in opportunity and expectation — not any natural advantage that men might have over women. In fact, they suggest men have no natural advantage in size and strength at all. On that point in particular, they're likely to face significant pushback from some scientists and other readers. So I started my recent conversation with the authors there. We also tackled the thorny question of transgender girls in girls' sports — and how it might complicate Bekker and Mumford's efforts to get rid of the gender binary in athletics. The interview, conducted over Zoom, has been edited for clarity and length. You argue that while men have higher testosterone production than women, it doesn't give them any natural advantage in athletic competition. And you point to some real holes in the testosterone research. But there are plenty of scientists who say, 'Sure, the testosterone research may be flawed, but the strongly suggests it provides an advantage for men.' What do you say to those researchers? Sheree Bekker: So we often hear this folk myth that testosterone is the 'molecule of performance' or the 'male molecule,' when actually everybody has testosterone. But our key argument is that there isn't just one thing that determines performance. There really is so much more going on, mostly socially and culturally — how little boys and little girls are treated, and how we're treated throughout our lifetimes — that plays into performance. Advertisement That can have much more of an impact than testosterone itself can have. Stephen Mumford: Let's think how implausible it is that testosterone explains superior performance: Look at the Olympic medals tables, look at how they're dominated by the United States and China — by wealthy countries. It's not as if testosterone levels for men in the United States are double what they are, or 100 times what they are, in some other country. The chief indicators of athletic performance are going to be investment in the infrastructure — the training facilities and so on. Then you can think about gender — how there's far more investment in men's sport than women's sport. You write about women who nudged their way into male-dominated athletic competitions in the past: one who finished second in a figure skating championship in 1902 and another who struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig in a baseball exhibition. You suggest that men felt threatened by women's athletic prowess and pushed them aside by creating a separate category of 'women's sports.' But historians have been , arguing that women were really the driving force behind the creation of women's sports. And I think if you asked the average male athlete today if he felt threatened by women athletes, he'd probably say no. So make your case for women's sports as a tool of patriarchy and exclusion. Bekker: The point of that argument was illuminating some 'hidden figures' in women's sports — who, before sport was segregated into men's sports and women's sports, participated with men and against men. And then, when we saw those women get close to winning — or even winning — those sports, suddenly we saw women being banned, and then a few years down the line, a women's category was created. Advertisement I think these examples are illustrative. It's not to say that is the whole history of women's sports, but I think it does tell us something about women's sport. Do you oppose, say, women-only or Black-only spaces in the professional world? And if not, why is this sort of separation different from sex segregation in sports? Mumford: We wouldn't be opposed to, say, a support group for women, because voluntary exit is allowed: If you decide you want to leave and go talk to some men, you're free to do so. This is why we think women's sport is specifically a case of segregation — because no matter how good you are, you're not allowed to go out and play against somebody else. There are a lot of women who take great pride in the growth of women's soccer and basketball. Do you risk alienating them by suggesting they're trapped in some sort of false consciousness? Bekker: I think there is a lot of education to do — for women to understand all of these ways in which they're being kept small and their sport is being kept small. And we find that people who hear this argument really do say, 'Wow! That resonates with me. Wow! That does speak to my experience of sports.' Mumford: Women's sport is progress of a kind — because, to begin with, women were completely excluded from sport. But it's not the end goal. Women are not getting equal treatment as men. They're not getting equal funding. They're not getting equal prestige. Advertisement You write in the book that if we were really concerned about fairness and safety, we wouldn't divvy athletes up by gender; after all, there can be real weight and power differentials within a gender. You suggest there might be another way — separating athletes by skill or size instead. But you don't really go into detail. So can you tell me, in practical terms, how, say, a high school soccer league might categorize athletes without using gender? Would there be speed or weight-lifting tests? Would it just be observation by coaches? Who makes the ultimate decision? Mumford: One thing we'd say is, it's got to be specific to the sport. So if you're considering safety, for instance, there are some sports where that's not a consideration whatsoever. Golf's not a contact sport. Regarding fairness, there is a long tradition of sports being divided up by ability. Soccer is often divided by age and abilities. There's different leagues where the teams are at different levels. There's a well-known English soccer player, Bekker: There are some places we might learn from. For example, disability sport. If we look at the Paralympics, it's not perfect. But they obviously have ways of classifying people according to their ability. I'm an injury prevention researcher. So safety is really important to me. And what would make the biggest difference is to think about skill: You see this in combat sports already — sports like karate where they're actually classified according to their skill, by belt color. You make a strong argument for transgender athletes' participation in sports. But most Americans are — and Republicans have effectively used this as a wedge issue against the Democratic Party. How do you manage the politics? Does the transgender athlete issue pose a significant obstacle to getting rid of the gender binary in sports? Mumford: It's a created issue. The dangers have been completely exaggerated. The only data that counts is whether trans women are winning all the time — and trans women don't hold any world records. Managing the politics — we don't want to spend all our time discussing a manufactured issue. What we want to do is make our readers see the case for equality. See the real issues that hurt women: the abuse in sport, the lack of funding, the pay gap. I have to say, I know people who are very liberal-minded, who have daughters who play youth sports, and who have very genuine concerns about transgender girls injuring their kids. Bekker: We see a lot on social media — these videos that are really scary, right? Often, you'll see a bigger athlete barreling into another one. And I think this narrative plays into our ideas about male and female — this idea that women are always smaller and weaker and are going to be hurt by men, and men are always bigger and stronger. And so it's that conflation of trans women with cis men that is being played upon. And for me, all of these issues will dissolve if we think about how we could categorize and play and think about sport differently. David Scharfenberg can be reached at
Al Jazeera
28-02-2025
- Health
- Al Jazeera
Africa HIV deaths to mount, as Trump stops funding. Here's why
United States funding cuts to HIV/AIDS programmes in many African countries could lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths on the continent, health experts and aid organisations have warned. In South Africa alone, US funding halts could lead to 500,000 deaths in the next 10 years, an official of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center said on Thursday. The warning comes as countries begin to feel the effect of massive US aid cuts. Just after taking office on January 20, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order that paused foreign aid assistance for an initial duration of 90 days. This week, Trump's government cut 90 percent of foreign contracts funded by the US aid agency (USAID) and sacked thousands of its staff in Washington. And on Thursday came news that the Trump administration had decided to stop funding UNAIDS, the UN's HIV/AIDS programme that serves communities around the world. In a report this week, UNAIDS said at least 55 countries around the world had reported funding cuts to HIV programmes, including several in African countries. That included halts to 55 HIV projects supported by the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) or that received part US funding. African countries bear the biggest burden of the HIV epidemic, with an estimated 25 million living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, out of the total 38 million people living with HIV worldwide. PEPFAR, which started in 2003, is credited with saving 26 million lives, according to UNAIDS. The program's spending totals approximately $120bn since its inception. Here's what to know about how aid cuts to HIV/AIDS programmes are affecting African countries: What are experts and aid organisations saying? On Thursday, Linda-Gail Bekker, chief operating officer of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center told reporters that funding cuts to South Africa will have a devastating impact. Bekker made the statement after many South African aid groups were notified this week by the US Department of State that their grants under USAID had been cancelled. According to the AFP news agency, the notices read that the grants no longer aligned with 'US priorities' and would be terminated for the 'convenience and the interest of the US government'. But Bekker said the consequences of that decision will be dire. 'We will see lives lost,' the official said. 'In excess of half a million unnecessary deaths will occur because of the loss of the funding, and up to a half a million new infections.' Already, the United Nations said, HIV services in many African countries have been disrupted, including prevention, testing, and treatment services. Hundreds of thousands of people who once had free access to crucial antiretroviral treatment (ART) – medication that suppresses the viral load in infected people to undetectable levels and helps them lead healthy lives – have been cut off. Shortly after the aid cut announcements, the US secretary of state issued an emergency waiver to resume 'life-saving' humanitarian assistance, including HIV treatment but not prevention programmes – unless they are for pregnant or breastfeeding women, presumably, to stop transmission from mother to child. And the block on funding UNAIDS will likely compound the resource challenges faced by nonprofits trying to serve patients and vulnerable communities. Projects related to 'gender ideology' or diversity, transgender surgeries or family planning are forbidden under the waivers. Organisations have been invited to submit a 30-day work plan and budgets for review and approval before they can be approved. It's unclear if any organisation has been cleared under the new rules yet. However, officials say there's massive confusion over how the waiver would be implemented on the ground, even with approval, as testing, prevention, and treatment projects often complement each other and would now have to be uncoupled. In addition, many of the US implementing partners involved in the running of the programmes have either stopped working or are working at a reduced capacity. What is the aid burden in Africa and how was US aid helping? According to the Global HIV Prevention Coalition, the US was responsible for two-thirds of international financing in developing countries. A major recipient is South Africa, the country with the highest HIV burden in the world at 7.5 million people. High prevalence in the country is linked to lower levels of education and awareness, especially in rural areas. Twenty percent of the world's HIV-infected persons are in South Africa, and 20 percent of new HIV infections also occur in the country. South Africa has made progress in expanding the number of people accessing treatment for HIV, resulting in a 66 percent decrease in AIDS-related deaths since 2010. New HIV infections have also fallen by 58 percent, according to UNAIDS. PEPFAR funds made up about 17 percent of South Africa's HIV budget ($400m), while the South African government took up the majority according to the country's health ministry. That support helped ensure that about 5.5 million people received antiretroviral (ARV) treatment yearly, according to the National Department of Health. Similarly, more than half of HIV medicines bought for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia are secured through US funding, according to the UN. Of the 20 countries that are most reliant on US aid for HIV/AIDs programmes, 17 are in Africa, the UN says. They include: DRC, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, Angola, Kenya, Ukraine, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Togo, Côte d'Ivoire, Eswatini, and Benin. The other three are Haiti, El Salvador and Nepal. Which HIV programmes have been cut in Africa? South Africa: Several HIV treatment clinics have been shut, including in rural areas of KwaZulu-Natal, which has about 1.9 million people living with HIV and is the worst-affected region in the country. That has caused an influx of patients to other overstretched general public facilities, according to reports by The Associated Press agency. Facilities such as Engage Men's Health in Johannesburg, which supported gay men, or the Tswane HIV/tuberculosis clinic in Pretoria have been closed. In total, about 222,000 people living with HIV, including 7,445 children under the age of 15, face disruptions in their daily antiretroviral therapy supplies, according to UNAIDS. In Ivory Coast, where the US supported more than 400,000 adults and children living with AIDS, 516 health facilities have been completely shut down, according to the UN. Eighty-five percent of people on HIV treatment are affected, and more than 8,600 staff, including doctors, nurses, and midwives affected. An orphanage in rural Botswana, catering to children living with HIV, has been shut down, according to reporting by The New York Times. In Mozambique, the UN says HIV testing is no longer available in most parts of the country, and community workers, educators, and counsellors who worked with PEPFAR-funded projects have stopped receiving payments. In Tanzania, community health workers, educators, and counsellors funded by PEPFAR have lost their jobs. An HIV vaccine trial led by BRILLIANT Consortium, a medical research organisation in South Africa, and with $45m in funding support from USAID, has been paused, according to Stat News. The trial aimed to produce neutralising antibodies that could potentially fight off HIV. It was supposed to launch in late January, with 48 participants across three countries: Uganda, Kenya and South Africa. How are countries responding? South Africa has sought to allay fears that the funding gap was a death sentence to HIV prevention programmes, pledging to strengthen its health system and care. Earlier this month, President Cyril Ramaphosa said his administration was working on local solutions. 'We are looking at various interventions to address the immediate needs and ensure the continuity of essential services,' he said. One of those interventions was kickstarted in Soweto, one of the hardest-hit suburbs on February 25, under the Health Ministry. The ' HIV Treatment Campaign ' wants to persuade 1.1 million people already living with HIV, but who are not on treatment, to be enrolled in treatment programmes by December. Meanwhile, in Nigeria, the government in February approved about $3.3m to buy HIV treatment packs and fill the funding gaps over the next four months. A government committee focused on finding alternative financial support has also been launched. Can African countries find alternative funding sources? One major alternative to USAID is likely to be UNAIDS. The UN agency recently praised South Africa's new intervention initiative and said it will work with the government to ensure the continuity of HIV services. 'This plan protects the human rights of people living with HIV, offering them hope and an opportunity to live healthy and fulfilling lives,' the agency said in a statement, adding it was 'inspiring.' But with the US not only suspending its own HIV prevention support but also stopping the funding for UNAIDS, it is unclear whether the UN agency will be able to help countries like South Africa. Meanwhile, experts are calling on other Western countries, especially the European Union, to step up and fill the gaps. 'The EU and its member states collectively represent the largest global provider of ODA (official development assistance),' analyst Coline Le Piouff of the European Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a paper published on the organisation's website. 'As such, the bloc should harness the strength that comes from acting together and speaking as one voice,' Le Pious wrote. In 2023, the EU donated 95.9 billion euros ($100bn) in foreign assistance, majorly to aid Ukraine, COVID-19, and climate change efforts. In addition, private aid organisations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, may also have to fill in funding gaps, such as in research, some health experts say. 'They may chip in, but this is up to them because they also have their priorities,' Anna Roca, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told Clinical Trials Arena, a US publication focused on clinical research. 'It's not going to be easy to suddenly increase funding for something that was not part of the foundation's agenda. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is already co-funding drug development with USAID, so some research may be able to continue. It's hard to say at the moment that if USAID is not there, how the industry is going to respond – we will have to see,' she added.
The Guardian
28-02-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
US shutdown of HIV/Aids funding ‘could lead to 500,000 deaths in South Africa'
Sweeping notices of termination of funding have been received by organisations working with HIV and Aids across Africa, with dire predictions of a huge rise in deaths as a result. After the US announced a permanent end to funding for HIV projects, services across the board have been affected, say doctors and programme managers, from projects helping orphans and pregnant women to those reaching transgender individuals and sex workers. The cuts could result in 500,000 deaths over the next 10 years in South Africa, modelling suggests, while thousands of people are already set to lose their jobs in the coming days. The US government has announced it will be cutting more than 90% of the contracts of its key development agency, USAid, and slashing $60bn (£48bn) of overseas aid spending. The Guardian has heard that notices of termination have been sent to organisations in other countries in the region, including Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, as well as with the joint United Nations programme UNAids. The Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric Aids Foundation said it had received termination notices for three of its projects, which provide HIV treatment for more than 350,000 people in Lesotho, Eswatini and Tanzania. The figure includes more than 10,000 HIV-positive pregnant women, who must continue taking antiretroviral drugs to avoid passing the disease on to their babies. Dr Lynne Mofenson, a senior adviser at the foundation, said the decision was 'a death sentence for mothers and children'. Many projects had been forced to stop work in late January after the Trump administration announced a 90-day review of foreign aid. A few were then granted temporary waivers to continue on the grounds that they provided life-saving services, before receiving notices on Thursday instructing them to close their doors permanently. Projects funded by the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), founded by George W Bush in 2003, appear to be particularly affected. In South Africa it funds 17% of the HIV response; in other countries the figure is much higher. Prof Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town, said: 'It is not hyperbole to say that I predict a huge disaster.' Bekker has worked on modelling suggesting a complete loss of Pepfar funding in South Africa would lead to more than 500,000 extra HIV deaths over a decade. It comes at a time when scientific breakthroughs, such as the introduction of long-acting injectable prevention drugs, meant many working in the HIV field had hoped an end to the disease might be in sight. Now, said Bekker, it was likely things would go backwards. South Africa has about 8 million people living with HIV, the highest number globally. She said she had initially expected the US to target programmes working with key groups of people such as the LGBT+ community, because of the Trump administration's attacks on diversity initiatives, 'but in fact, this has been across the board. 'This is children, this is orphans, vulnerable children, young women and girl programmes. It is generic and across the board.' It also halts ongoing research, including trials into potential HIV vaccines and new prevention drugs, Bekker said. US funding had allowed projects to fill gaps in government provision, such as clinics where transgender people or sex workers can seek care without stigma or legal concerns, Bekker said. Kholi Buthelezi, national coordinator at Sisonke, a sex workers' organisation, said: 'I've been having sleepless nights. This blow, it reminded us of back when there was no cure for HIV.' At a press briefing on the cuts, she and others working on HIV in South Africa called on their government to 'step up' and fill the gaps left by the US's withdrawal. Pepfar funding has been distributed via USAid and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Programmes with funding from the CDC have not yet been forced to shut, said Dr Kate Rees, a public health medicine specialist at the Anova Health Institute, but said it was too early to conclude that those programmes were safe. There had already been plans to shift programmes reliant on donors to government funding over the next five years, Rees said, but 'now, instead of a careful handover, we're being pushed over a cliff edge'. US funding had been embedded in the health system, she said, and so the withdrawal would 'be felt by everyone who uses or works in health services'. Anova has received a termination notice. 'Tomorrow we are letting go more than 2,800 people,' Rees said. 'That's counsellors, data capturers, healthcare workers – and these people are not going to find other jobs very easily.'
