Three new covid cases reported in Rajasthan
A two-month-old baby from Didwana tested positive for Covid-19. She was admitted to the NICU of AIIMS Jodhpur. A 27-year-old patient from Udaipur is undergoing treatment in RNT Medical College, and a 68-year-old man from Subash Colony of Kekri Ajmer is undergoing treatment in Eternal Hospital in Jaipur.
A health official said that, as of now, 15 Covid patients have been reported this year on the state. Three cases each have been reported from Jaipur and Udaipur.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
Rajasthan
reported 3
new Covid-19 cases
on Sunday from Jodhpur, Udaipur, and Jaipur.
A 27-year-old Udaipur patient is being treated at RNT Medical College for Covid.
A 68-year-old man from Ajmer is hospitalized in Jaipur's Eternal Hospital with Covid.
Covid case count in Rajasthan has reached 15 so far this year, officials confirmed.
Jaipur and Udaipur have each reported 3 Covid cases since the beginning of the year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Hepatitis: Adults Can Also Get Vaccinated If They Missed The Jab In Childhood
Nagpur: As the world observes World Hepatitis Day on July 28, liver disease specialists in Nagpur are urging citizens to act before it's too late — highlighting that Hepatitis B vaccination is not just for children. Adults who missed their shots earlier in life can — and should — get vaccinated now, say doctors. Dr Piyush Marudwar, consultant gastroenterologist and liver transplant physician, said that even today, millions of adults remain unaware that the Hepatitis B vaccine is safe, effective, and easily available at any age. "Hepatitis may be silent, but our response must be loud. Awareness, timely screening, and vaccination are our strongest tools in defeating this global health challenge," said Dr Marudwar. Adding a local perspective, Dr Amol Samarth, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at Super Specialty Hospital, Nagpur, said that hepatitis remains an underdiagnosed but serious threat in Vidarbha, especially because of late testing. "In Nagpur, we are seeing a growing number of patients diagnosed with Hepatitis B and C during evaluations for other illnesses. Unfortunately, many reach us when liver damage has already progressed. Routine screening and adult vaccination are the most effective ways to prevent this," said Dr Samarth. He added that public hospitals like Super Specialty Hospital offer affordable screening and consultation facilities, and that both Hepatitis B vaccination and antiviral treatment are widely accessible in Nagpur now. This year's theme, 'Hepatitis Can't Wait', underscores the urgency of acting early. Doctors warn that the post-Covid disruption in routine health check-ups has led to delays in hepatitis detection and follow-up care. "Hepatitis is one of the leading causes of end-stage liver disease and the need for liver transplantation in India," said Dr Rahul Saxena, secretary of ZTCC Nagpur and a prominent liver transplant surgeon. "Nagpur is gradually becoming a liver transplant-ready city with better awareness and infrastructure. But to reduce the burden, we must focus on prevention," he said. "Hepatitis B has a safe and effective vaccine, and Hepatitis C is now curable with oral medications. Still, many patients present late due to lack of awareness or stigma," Dr Saxena added. All specialists emphasised that testing for hepatitis should be as common as checking for diabetes or blood pressure, especially for high-risk groups such as healthcare workers, pregnant women, dialysis patients, and those who've had blood transfusions.
The Print
8 hours ago
- The Print
AIIMS researchers call for warning labels on alcohol like tobacco
The opinion piece by oncologists Dr Abhishek Shankar, Dr Vaibhav Sahni and Dr Deepak Saini from the Department of Radiation Oncology, Dr BR Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, AIIMS, Delhi stated that adolescence forms a crucial period for the initiation and intensification of substance use behaviour, including alcohol. In an opinion piece titled 'Expanding behavioural interventions through cancer warning labels in India: from cigarette packs to alcohol bottles' published in Frontiers in Public Health on July 24, the doctors have highlighted that alcohol, like tobacco, is a proven carcinogen, yet awareness remains low. New Delhi, Jul 27 (PTI) Researchers at AIIMS have called for strong, evidence-based warning labels on alcohol products to prevent avoidable cancers, building on India's success with tobacco warnings. Behavioural interventions instituted by means of alcohol warning labels may prove to be effective in affecting positive changes in the consumption habits of individuals belonging to this age group, particularly in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), where it is all the more important for certain sections of society to be educated and sensitised towards the consequences of substance use, the researchers said. They stated that cancer cases in India have seen a steep rise, with data from the 2012 to 2022 period suggesting a 36 per cent increase in incidence (1.01 million-1.38 million). GLOBOCAN 2022 data saw about 1.41 million new cancer cases in India with a five-year prevalence at around 3.25 million and a total cancer mortality at 916,827. Alcohol attributable a fraction for cancer and age-standardised rate per 100,000 in India are 4.7 per cent and 4.8 per cent, respectively, according to the GLOBOCAN 2020 data. Data from 2016 suggested that 6.6 per cent of Disease Adjusted Life Years in India were attributable to alcohol consumption which followed that of tobacco at 10.9 per cent, the researchers said. The researchers also mentioned about the advisory brought out by the US surgeon general in January 2025 regarding the consumption of alcohol and the risk of cancer, which stated that alcohol consumption demonstrably elevates the risk for developing at a minimum, seven types of cancer (colon/rectum, liver, breast, esophagus, larynx, pharynx and oral cavity). The advisory also mentioned the mechanistic links between alcohol consumption and the risk of developing cancer along with the fact that this effect is observable regardless of gender. Even before the release of this advisory, alcohol-attributable cancers have been recognised to contribute significantly to the global burden of disease, the researchers said. Cancer warning labels on alcohol containers have been observed to be of benefit in reducing alcohol consumption and lowering the perception of consumption, they said. The Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) in 2016-17 noted an increase by 16 per cent for health warnings on cigarette packs, with pictorial health warnings demonstrating a 50 per cent elevated impact on the intention to quit smoking cigarettes. Warnings can be differentiated based on the type of messaging involved into loss-framed and gain-framed which have an emphasis on associated risks/harms and the benefits of quitting, respectively, the researchers explained. There is evidence in literature to suggest that gain-framed messaging possesses an advantage over loss-framed warnings but the research on such aspects has mainly focused on loss-framed warnings in the case of cigarette smoking. It is also suggested that a combination of messaging can help inform behaviour change in a more effective manner which is based off the concept of the role individual beliefs play in determining outcomes, they said. India being an LMIC, this trend indicates the effect of cancer warning labels in modifying the behaviour of a significant number of people consuming such products, the researchers highlighted. 'The LMICs may look into expanding the positive experience gained from tobacco warning labels to those pertaining to alcohol containers, which clearly state a cancer risk from consumption. It may also be useful for these cancer labels to state that there is no lower threshold for alcohol-related cancer risk along with the types of cancers demonstrably attributable to alcohol consumption so far,' the doctors said. They pointed out that a crucial but often ignored aspect while considering warning labels is the multiplicative interaction of smoking and alcohol consumption in determining cancer risk. A National Cancer Institute (NCI) Workshop in December 2020 emphasised the importance of addressing the combined usage of tobacco and alcohol. Co-use of tobacco and alcohol has been found to be associated with a multiplicative effect in cancer risk, particularly for pharyngeal and oral sites. The importance of reciprocative warning labels on tobacco and alcohol product packaging is further underscored by the fact that alcohol usage has been observed to go up with an increase in cigarette smoking, with the former being associated with lower rates of quitting and higher relapse rates in smokers. It may also be worth considering to have helpful or constructive labelling on containers which guide the user to seek medical advice or undergo screening for cancer instead of being terminalistic in its messaging by suggesting graphic or fatal outcomes upon consumption, the researchers said. 'Since cancer as a disease may present as a result of the combined effect of alcohol and tobacco consumption, it makes sense to place such cancer warning labels and not address these risk factors in isolation,' they said. PTI PLB MNK MNK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Wire
8 hours ago
- The Wire
Recovery, the Unfinished Business of the Pandemic
The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic far outlasted the health emergency. Long after infection curves flattened and emergency declarations were lifted, countries across the globe continued to wrestle with a deep economic, social and health-related fallout. In India, over 23 crore people were pushed into poverty during the pandemic years, with rural and informal sector workers bearing the brunt, and the economic spillover continues to be seen in the form of increased government debt, rising inflation, a stagnating hospitality industry and other things, even after half a decade has passed since the onset of COVID. In the health sector, the disruption to routine immunisation services led to measles outbreaks in numerous Sub-Saharan countries, while a UNICEF report warned that about 23 million children missed out on essential vaccines in 2020 alone. Mental health outcomes also deteriorated sharply. Data from the WHO shows that there was a 25% global increase in anxiety and depression in the first year of the pandemic. These aftershocks demonstrate that recovery is not a passive return to normalcy – it is a protracted and complex phase that demands sustained attention, governance and resource mobilisation. The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered worldwide efforts to mitigate the scale and impact of future health emergencies, including amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR); the creation of the Pandemic Fund and the WHO Pandemic Intelligence Hub; and the ACT-Accelerator, COVAX and One Health initiatives. The latest – and most talked-about – in this series of efforts is the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which was adopted on May 20, 2025 after three years of negotiations and discussions. It will become a legally binding international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response once it is signed by 60 countries. After India's vote in favour of the resolution to adopt the agreement, making it an official state party to the agreement, the prime minister has talked about its importance for vulnerable populations in the Global South that disproportionately bear the effects of health challenges. In order to successfully achieve this goal, the agreement needs to accomplish two things – chart out obligations targeted towards vulnerable populations, and highlight the specific ways in which pandemics' disproportionate impact on the Global South can be mitigated. While the agreement does lay the ground for equity in both aspects, it falls short of outlining implementable measures to achieve these goals meaningfully without hindering sovereign decisions. Notably, the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex, a critical component tied to equity and access, still has another year to be worked out, further delaying clarity on how benefit-sharing commitments will be operationalised. Commendably, the agreement talks about the need to provide affordable health and other social support services to 'persons in vulnerable situations'. It also calls for the mitigation of the socioeconomic impacts of pandemics on such persons. However, it misses an opportunity to guide state parties on when and how this should be done at the domestic and trans-national levels, especially at the time of recovery. Integrating recovery into the pandemic agreement Article 3 of the agreement, titled 'Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery', gestures toward the importance of post-pandemic strategies. However, recovery is buried within broader health system resilience goals and mentioned only in passing. It refers vaguely to 'developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies' without outlining how, when or by whom such strategies must be developed, implemented or monitored. This diluted treatment effectively renders recovery a discretionary task, rather than an obligation. There is no requirement for countries to assess the long-term impacts of pandemics on vulnerable populations, nor is there any architecture for coordinating recovery efforts, allocating responsibilities or ensuring accountability. In the light of this gap, recovery must be established as a clear, foundational pillar within the pandemic agreement – not a vague aspiration buried under resilience. It is important to acknowledge at the onset that international treaties cannot impose rigid mandates on sovereign states. However, by creating shared expectations and enabling frameworks, they can support states in fulfilling recovery goals without infringing on national autonomy. Rather than prescribe uniform recovery models, the agreement can promote adaptable, equity-based cooperation that complements domestic efforts while ensuring accountability and consistency across borders. The agreement should require states to develop standalone national recovery frameworks tailored to their contexts, with explicit mandates for implementation, periodic review and transparent reporting. Recovery should be understood broadly – not just as restoring health systems but as encompassing social, economic and mental health dimensions affected by pandemics. A comprehensive recovery approach must prioritise impact assessments focused on marginalised and vulnerable populations – including gender minorities, workers in the informal sector, migrants, senior citizens, homeless populations, persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities – who disproportionately suffer during crises. These assessments should directly inform targeted economic and social policies, such as livelihood restoration, social protection adjustments and reintegration support, to prevent widening inequalities in the post-crisis phase. Further, recovery goals must be multi-dimensional and should account for the wide-ranging impact of pandemics across different key areas. Accordingly, the agreement should embed principles for access to justice and redressal mechanisms for harms suffered during pandemics, the restoration of disrupted education systems, safeguards for the continuity of essential public and welfare services, mechanisms for the review of governmental decisions and actions during the state of exception, and the rebuilding of public trust through transparent and participatory governance. The absence of these dimensions risks a recovery that is piecemeal and opaque, weakening institutional integrity and leaving societies more vulnerable to future crises. International cooperation in recovery efforts In order to achieve the aim of equity, especially across the Global North-Global South divide, the international community must direct its attention to recovery efforts across national borders. The agreement must institutionalise mechanisms for international coordination and solidarity during the recovery phase, facilitating sharing of expertise, resources and data across countries to reduce regional vulnerabilities and promote equitable resilience. The bodies set up under the agreement do not account for this adequately, in terms of function or finances. The mechanisms set up under the agreement, such as PABS, deal with important functions like pathogen and data sharing, and pharmaceutical supply and distribution. There are no such systems established for recovery. The Coordinating Financial Mechanism previously established under the IHR has been envisaged as the mechanism to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of the pandemic agreement as well. Its mandate under the pandemic agreement is to 'support strengthening and expanding capacities for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and contribute to the prompt availability of surge financing response necessary as of day zero, particularly in developing country Parties.' This conspicuously and concerningly misses recovery as a crucial stage of assessing impacts and developing strategies for rebuilding, which is especially crucial for low and middle-income countries in the Global South, including India. The cultural impact of international documents Understandably, international agreements cannot impose specific obligations in the same way that domestic laws can. Given the legally binding nature of the pandemic agreement, it should also refrain from interfering with sovereign and context-specific decisions adopted at the national and sub-national levels. At the same time, beyond policy prescriptions, international treaties play a critical role in shaping legal cultures and empowering civil society to demand justice and reform. By embedding preparedness, resilience-building and recovery within the pandemic agreement, the global community will be able to create a shared vocabulary and normative framework that activists, policymakers and courts can invoke domestically to advance equity and resilience. India's past experience has illustrated this dynamic vividly. The Vishakha Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment, which transformed protections for women, were grounded in India's commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has influenced landmark judicial decisions and legislative reforms enhancing disability rights and access to welfare in India. What can be done to prioritise recovery? While laying out the rules or procedure and terms of reference, the Intergovernmental Working Group empowered under the agreement must lay down specific provisions on recovery, including indicative domestic guidance, mechanisms for international cooperation and sustainable financing or recovery that recognises marginalisation and prioritises equity. Embedding principles that prioritise domestic and international efforts will shift recovery from a discretionary afterthought to a binding commitment that demands accountability without prescribing inflexible solutions. It provides states with a flexible but clear mandate to build inclusive, adaptive recovery architectures that address the deep, lasting fallout of pandemics. Shreyashi Ray is a senior resident fellow with the health team at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Anchal Bhatheja is a research fellow at the centre.
