Stay updated with breaking news from Risk elimination. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
wound. several people were also wounded. none of their injuries l life-th life-threatening. police received reports of an active shooter of a physician s office building just before 5:00 p.m. yesterday. this is not a random event. it is not as if he went to a hospital and was indiscriminately shooting at people. he very purposefully went to this location, went to a very specific floor and shot with very specific purpose. it is so sad. i was coming to the doctor and i got my grandkids with me. and this terrible scene. just awful. it is sad. my daughter-in-law is from buffalo. so now it is so slow to home. it is not even safe if you come outside anymore, you you know. this really does happen. you see it on tv but you don t think that it will happen in front of your eyes. this is a wake-up call that it can happen anywhere. you can t even go to a school, can t go to school, now you can t go to the doctor. and police say that they are getting close to identifying the ....
Can happen anywhere. you can t even go to a school, can t go to school, now you can t go to the doctor. and police say that they are getting close to identifying the suspect. we know he had one rifle and one handgun with him. he used both of those weapons. authorities were notifying the victims families late last night. let s bring in national security analyst julia keim, also professor at harvard. nice to have you this morning. wednesday it is tulsa, a hospital, but it really could be anywhere. and while we ve all been so focused on uvalde for good reason, there have been over a dozen other mass shootings in the last week. and so i wonder while washington debates what do and figures that out, you say that we are beyond risk elimination at this point. at this point we re in risk reduction mode. i think that s right. we tend to think, okay, how can we be safe in a country like ours. why don t we just start at ....
Because basically we are now learning to live with a virus, hard to imagine, and not die by it, which is the only option we had in 2020. i hear in your voice a lot of optimism. i think there was a lot of yo-yo, we are going back to the office, not going back to the office. we re going back to the office, but not just yet. there has been a lost to that corporate culture and we have to talk about learning loss. you re a mother, you re also an instructor. at what point do we have to make that critical shift? and i know the way you analyze these things to say look, it s now worth the risk. we need to get back to a more normal life. exactly. that is right. the idea that people still talk about risk elimination is ridiculous, because it just assumes there s no consequences for deciding to have the most aggressive public health policy. i think what you re seeing now in a number of country is also a recognition that they re making ....
they re highly qualified scientists. they are poor communicators. a lot of what should have been done is dr. walensky should have said we re moving away from risk elimination and getting to a state where we want to focus on risk reduction. we should have been there for a long time. in my opinion these changes are overdue. for the general population data supports in the first five days of infection 80 to 90% of the trance missability occurs. after the five days there may be mild very low level trance missability but it is much lower and so to balance that with getting people back to work, helping with the worker shortages and knowing that we are not going to get to zero covid we have to get to an acceptable level of risk. with that i do believe we will get there. i can tell you that this should not correlate for everyone ....
In n95s. sandra: and obviously that would be the most effective at stopping the spread. but the availability of them. and lastly testing and the mixed messages on this. the p.c.r. test after infection can be positive for up to 12 weeks. so that is not going to be helpful. why not test people at that time. i myself feel it s a reasonable thing to do. sandra: so there s a lot of questions over how many days you need to stay home from work or school with a positive test and then getting a negative test days later. what are we supposed to think of the mixed messaging and how are people supposed to get this right? it s confusing, sandra, and it s not black and white. bottom line is we are not going to risk elimination. before they said stay home, stay home as long as possible to eliminate risk of transmitting. ....