Honolulu EMS honors newly promoted personnel
The Honolulu Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division recently honored the promotions of eight paramedics and two office personnel during a ceremony held at the Mission Memorial Auditorium.
Honolulu mayor declares Emergency Medical Services week
The honorees included:
EMS District Chiefs Jason Moses and Shara Molina
EMS Supervisors Lee Lenchanko, Julia Seto, Jeff Jacobson, Mitch Kam and Mike Park
Administrative Staff Alisa Vincent (Personnel Clerk) and Jessica Bornoff (Supervising Office Assistant)
These men and women have earned their promotions to Paramedic Supervisors, District Chiefsand office supervisors. EMS is a very difficult career, and in order to move up, you have to have a lot of grit and determination. I commend all of our personnel who were promoted today and thank them for their commitment to our island's sick and injured.
Jim Ireland, Director of Honolulu Emergency Services DepartmentThe ceremony also featured guest speaker Aaron Mikami, a COVID-19 survivor who credited EMS with saving his life.
Since my battle with COVID-19, I've had time to reflect on everyone who played a role in mysurvival and recovery. So many dedicated medical professionals were involved, and it all beganwith the men and women of Honolulu EMS. They initiated the chain of survival, and being part of this promotional ceremony during EMS Week brings the entire journey full circle. It's an honor to stand with those who were there for me at the very beginning
Aaron Mikami
In December 2020, Mikami was found unresponsive while quarantining in a hotel room after contracting COVID-19.
Honolulu EMS was able to administer life-saving measures, which kept him alive during the transport to the hospital.
Check out more news from around Hawaii
To learn more about the Honolulu Emergency Media Services Division, visit their website here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
COVID-19 Is Rising Again. Here's What to Know
As much as we want to put it behind us, COVID-19 isn't going away. Cases are currently rising across the country in a summer surge. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that cases of COVID-19 are increasing in nine states and likely growing in another 16. The trends are estimates, as the CDC no longer conducts rigorous surveillance of cases based on results from lab tests. Fewer people are also getting tested. But the data do provide a hint of how the disease is changing over time, and new monitoring systems that track viruses in wastewater confirm the rise. The CDC says that the overall level of respiratory diseases in the U.S.— COVID-19, flu, and RSV—remains 'very low,' but that emergency room visits for COVID-19 are on the rise, accounting for 0.5% of emergency room visits in the country as of mid July, compared to 0.3% of cases at the beginning of the summer. While that may seem like a small increase, emergency room visits are a bellwether for disease trends, since they represent cases in which people are sick enough to seek care. 'We are starting to hear about more young kids or older adults showing up in the emergency room with COVID-19,' says Dr. Luis Ostrosky, chief of infectious diseases at UT Health Houston. Texas is one of the states seeing spikes in infections. Here's what experts say you need to know about the current surge in cases. Why are COVID-19 cases increasing in the summer? Unlike most respiratory diseases like the common cold and flu, which generally peak during the winter, COVID-19 tends to spike twice and sometimes three times a year: once in the fall and winter, once in spring, and another time in the summer. While viruses tend to spread more easily when people are gathered indoors during cold weather, the post-winter time periods also coincide with 'travel, vacations, and people congregating and going to events,' says Ostrosky. COVID-19 trends also depend on the emergence and spread of new variants. The latest, including NB.1.8.1, are getting better at spreading among people, which contributes to a bump in cases. Read More: What to Do About Your Red, Itchy Eyes Another factor that could be driving the surge in infections is that fewer people are getting vaccinated, for a number of reasons. U.S. health authorities recently changed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, continuing to recommend yearly shots for older people and those who have weakened immune systems, but allowing otherwise healthy adults more leeway to decide whether to get vaccinated. Many experts, however, continue to encourage people to get them. 'What I tell my colleagues and patients is that we need to follow the evidence, and the best evidence out there is not controversial,' says Ostrosky. 'Vaccines are safe and very effective in preventing severe disease, hospitalizations, mortality, and Long COVID.' It's important for most people to get vaccinated every year to maintain good protection against severe disease, he says, and for those with weaker immune systems, including the elderly, to get vaccinated twice a year. 'I can't tell you how many times I've heard patients ask, 'Do COVID vaccines still work? Am I still supposed to get them?'' With less focus on the vaccines, education and awareness about them is dropping, he says, and that could fuel upticks in cases. Where is COVID-19 rising? According to the latest CDC estimates, the virus is growing in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. The agency's models find that there is a 95% chance that the epidemic is growing, which means more states could start to see increases in infections. What is the latest dominant COVID-19 variant? Omicron variants still account for all new infections in the U.S., with NB.1.8.1 responsible for 43% of cases as of the end of June. However, the CDC says the low number of cases reported to the agency means the data may not reflect the latest situation. Will the vaccine protect me from COVID-19? The current version of the vaccine targets a different, older Omicron variant, but it remains effective in protecting against severe disease because the viruses are closely related. 'Not only are they all Omicron, but they are from a specific branching of Omicron that is pretty well conserved over the past year and a half,' says Ostrosky. 'So I have pretty good confidence that the vaccine remains a good match for circulating variants.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
"Leave me the f—k out of this and let me go somewhere" - Kyrie Irving reveals things with the Nets fell apart because of a COVID-19 vaccine
"Leave me the f—k out of this and let me go somewhere" - Kyrie Irving reveals things with the Nets fell apart because of a COVID-19 vaccine originally appeared on Basketball Network. After three years of never really opening up about what went down during his time on the Brooklyn Nets, Kyrie Irving finally broke his silence and revealed that it went as far as him demanding to be let go by the team. It was all because of Irving's refusal to take the New York mandated COVID-19 vaccine back in 2021, which led the team to suspend the point guard. "Even the people that I was in business with were pro-vaccine. And I'm like, 'Okay look, that's fine, just leave me the f—k out of this, let me go somewhere. I even told the Nets to release me, I said, 'Yo, can you please just release me so I can,' Obviously the money situation is a different situation, I'm f—king Kyrie, I say that very aware of my position, they weren't just going to let me clock out and go somewhere," said Irving via his most recent Twitch stream. Kyrie affected his team's chances Irving's refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine was one of the many off-court issues he had in the same season, which significantly affected the Nets' chances to contend for a championship. Back in 2021, New York Mayor Eric Adams mandated that all of the city's professional sports teams must require their athletes to be vaccinated otherwise they won't be allowed to represent their teams on their home court. Since Irving didn't want to follow suit, he missed a total of 35 games to start the season as well as roughly $380,000 per game. The point guard's absence then left Kevin Durant and James Harden to lead the team by themselves, which went better than expected. Still, the growing concern throughout the season was the missed time and opportunity to build much-needed chemistry and reps. Nets general manager Sean Marks knew that was the case but couldn't really do anything about it. "He has a choice to make, and he made his choice," Marks said. "Again, my job here is to make what we deem as the best decision and best choices for the organization moving ahead as a whole. They're not always ones that are going to be met with open arms and a thumbs-up. These are hard decisions. Just like I'm sure it wasn't easy for Kyrie either to have to make that [decision] to not be around his teammates."Irving wanted to stay true to his beliefs Irving, who admitted at that time that he was neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine, made the decision not to take it because he felt it was a way to stay true to his beliefs. He didn't like the fact that he was being required to take it because that went against his freedom to make his own decisions. The former Nets guard wanted to take his time in deciding whether or not he was going to get vaccinated which ultimately cost him money as well as a chance to win a championship. Kyrie returned to the court by game 36 of that season, but only participated in the Nets' games on the road. He played a total of 29 games and averaged 27.4 points, 5.8 assists and 4.4 rebounds in 37.6 minutes per game. Unfortunately for him and the Nets, they were eliminated as early as the first round by the Boston Celtics. Kyrie wasn't let go right away by the Nets but was traded to the Dallas Mavericks the following story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Jul 23, 2025, where it first appeared.
Atlantic
6 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Obvious Reason the U.S. Should Not Vaccinate Like Denmark
For decades, countries around the world have held up the U.S.'s rigorous approach to vaccine policy as a global ideal. But in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services, many of the officials responsible for vaccine policy disagree. For the best immunization policy, they argue, the U.S. should look to Europe. Marty Makary, the new FDA commissioner, and Vinay Prasad, the new head of the agency's center for regulating vaccines, have criticized the nation's COVID-19-vaccine policy for recommending the shots more broadly than many European countries do. Tracy Beth Høeg, a new adviser at the FDA, has frequently compared the U.S.'s childhood vaccination schedule unfavorably with the more pared-down one in Denmark, and advocated for 'stopping unnecessary vaccines.' (Prasad, citing Høeg, has made the same points.) And the new chair of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Martin Kulldorff—whom Kennedy handpicked to serve on the panel, after dismissing its entire previous roster— announced in June that ACIP would be scrutinizing the current U.S. immunization schedule because it exceeds 'what children in most other developed nations receive.' This group has argued that the trimness of many European schedules—especially Denmark's—implies that the benefits of the U.S.'s roster of shots may not outweigh the risks, even though experts discussed and debated exactly that question when devising the guidance. But broadly speaking, the reasons behind the discrepancies they're referencing 'have nothing to do with safety,' David Salisbury, the former director of immunization of the U.K.'s Department of Health, told me. Rather, they're driven by the factors that shape any national policy: demographics, budget, the nature of local threats. Every country has a slightly different approach to vaccination because every country is different, Rebecca Grais, the executive director of the Pasteur Network and a member of the WHO's immunization-advisory group, told me. One of the most important considerations for a country's approach to vaccines is also one of the most obvious: which diseases its people need to be protected from. The U.S., for instance, recommends the hepatitis A vaccine for babies because cases of the contagious liver disease continue to be more common here than in many other high-income countries. And conversely, this country doesn't recommend some vaccine doses that other nations do. The U.K., for example, routinely vaccinates against meningococcal disease far earlier, and with more overall shots, than the U.S. does— starting in infancy, rather than in adolescence—because meningitis rates have been higher there for years. Using that same logic, countries have also modified prior recommendations based on emerging evidence—including, for instance, swapping the oral polio vaccine for the safer inactivated polio vaccine in the year 2000. Vaccines are expensive, and countries with publicly funded insurance consider those costs differently than the U.S. does. Under U.K. law, for instance, the National Health Service must cover any vaccine that has been officially recommended for use by its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, or JCVI—essentially, its ACIP. So that committee weights the cost effectiveness of a vaccine more heavily and more explicitly than ACIP does, and will recommend only a product that meets a certain threshold, Mark Jit, an epidemiologist at NYU, who previously worked at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told me. Price also influences what vaccines are ultimately available. In 2023, JCVI recommended (as ACIP has) two options for protecting babies against RSV; unlike in the U.S., though, the NHS bought only one of them from manufacturers, presumably 'because the price they gave the government was cheaper,' Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, the current JCVI chair, and a former member of the World Health Organization's advisory group on immunizations, told me. (The prices that the U.K. government pays for vaccines are generally confidential.) The nature of a country's health-care system can influence vaccine policy in other ways too. In the U.S. system of private health care, health-equity gaps are massive, and access to care is uneven, even for one person across their lifetime. Many Americans bounce from health-care provider to provider—if they are engaged with the medical system at all—and must navigate the coverage quirks of their insurer. In this environment, a more comprehensive vaccination strategy is, essentially, plugging up a very porous safety net. Broad, simple recommendations for vaccines help ensure that a minimal number of high-risk people slip through. 'We're trying to close gaps we couldn't close in any other way,' Grace Lee, a pediatrician and a former chair of ACIP, told me. The U.S. strategy has worked reasonably well for the U.S. Universal flu-vaccine recommendations (not common in Europe) lower the burden of respiratory disease in the winter, including for health-care workers. Hepatitis B vaccines for every newborn (rather than, like in many European countries, for only high-risk ones) help ensure that infants are protected even if their mother misses an opportunity to test for the virus. More generally, broad recommendations for vaccination can also mitigate the impacts of outbreaks in a country where obesity, heart disease, and diabetes—all chronic conditions that can exacerbate a course of infectious illness—affect large swaths of the population. American vaccine experts also emphasize the importance of the community-wide benefits of shots, which can reduce transmission from children to elderly grandparents or decrease the amount of time that parents have to take off of work. Those considerations carry far more weight for many public-health experts and policy makers in a country with patchy insurance coverage and inconsistent paid sick leave. The current leadership of HHS thinks differently: Kennedy, in particular, has emphasized individual choice about vaccines over community benefit. And some officials believe that a better childhood immunization schedule would have fewer shots on it, and more closely resemble Denmark's, notably one of the most minimalist among high-income countries. Whereas the U.S. vaccination schedule guards against 18 diseases, Denmark's targets just 10 —the ones that the nation's health authorities have deemed the most severe and life-threatening, Anders Hviid, an epidemiologist at Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, told me. All vaccines in Denmark are also voluntary. But 'I don't think it's fair to look at Denmark and say, 'Look how they're doing it, that should be a model for our country,'' Hviid told me. 'You cannot compare the Danish situation and health-care system to the situation in the U.S.' Denmark, like the U.K., relies on publicly funded health care. The small, wealthy country also has relatively narrow gaps in socioeconomic status, and maintains extremely equitable access to care. The national attitude toward federal authorities also includes a high degree of confidence, Hviid told me. Even with fully voluntary vaccination, the country has consistently maintained high rates of vaccine uptake, comparable with rates in the U.S., where public schools require shots. And even those factors don't necessarily add up to a minimalist schedule: Other Nordic countries with similar characteristics vaccinate their children more often, against more diseases. At least some of Kennedy's allies seem to have been influenced not just by Denmark's more limited vaccine schedule but specifically by the work of Christine Stabell Benn, a researcher at the University of Southern Denmark, who has dedicated much of her career to studying vaccine side effects. Like Kennedy and many of his allies, Benn is skeptical of the benefits of vaccination: 'It's not very clear that the more vaccines you get, the healthier you are,' she told me. Along with Kulldorff, Høeg, and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, Benn served on a committee convened in 2022 by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that cast COVID-19 vaccines as poorly vetted and risky. She and Høeg have appeared together on podcasts and co-written blogs about vaccine safety; Kulldroff also recently cited her work in an op-ed that praised one Danish approach to multidose vaccines, noting that evaluating that evidence 'may or may not lead to a change in the CDC-recommended vaccine schedule.' When justifying his cuts to Gavi —the world's largest immunization program—Kennedy referenced a controversial and widely criticized 2017 study co-authored by Benn and her husband, Peter Aaby, an anthropologist, that claimed that a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine was increasing mortality among children in Guinea-Bissau. (Benn wrote on LinkedIn that cutting Gavi funding 'may have major negative impact on overall child survival,' but also noted that 'it is reasonable to request that WHO and GAVI consider the best science available.') Several of the researchers I spoke with described Benn, with varying degrees of politeness, as a contrarian who has cherry-picked evidence, relied on shaky data, and conducted biased studies. Her research scrutinizing vaccine side effects— arguing, for instance, that vaccines not made from live microbes can come with substantial detriments —has been contradicted by other studies, spanning years of research and scientific consensus. (In a 2019 TEDx talk, she acknowledged that other vaccine researchers have disagreed with her findings, and expressed frustration over her difficulties publicizing them.) When we spoke, Benn argued that the U.S. would be the ideal venue for an experiment in which different regions of the country were randomly assigned to different immunization schedules to test their relative merits—a proposal that Prasad has floated as well, and that several researchers have criticized as unethical. Benn said she would prefer to see it done in a country that would withdraw vaccines that had previously been recommended, rather than add new ones. In a later email, she defended her work and described herself as 'a strong advocate for evidence-based vaccination policies,' adding that 'it is strange if that is perceived as controversial.' When I asked her whether anyone currently at HHS, or affiliated with it, had consulted her or her work to make vaccine decisions, she declined to answer. Kulldorff wrote in an email that 'Christine Stabell Benn is one of the world's leading vaccine scientists' but did not answer my questions about Benn's involvement in shaping his recommendations. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What unites Benn with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his top officials is that, across their statements, they suggest that the U.S. is pushing too many vaccines on its children. But the question of whether or not the U.S. may be 'overvaccinating' is the wrong one to ask, Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, told me. Rather, Scott said, the more important question is: 'Given our specific disease burden and public-health goals, are we effectively protecting the most vulnerable people? Based on overwhelming evidence? The answer is yes.' That's not to say that the U.S. schedule should never change, or that what one country learns about a vaccine should not inform another's choices. Data have accumulated —including from a large clinical trial in Costa Rica—to suggest that the HPV vaccine, for instance, may be powerful enough that only a single dose, rather than two, is necessary to confer decades of protection. (Based on that growing evidence, the prior roster of ACIP was considering recommending fewer HPV doses.) But largely, 'I'm not sure if there's a lot in the U.S. schedule to complain about,' Pollard, the JCVI chair, told me. On the contrary, other nations have taken plenty of their cues from America: The U.K., for instance, is expected to add the chickenpox shot to its list of recommended vaccines by early next year, Pollard told me, based in part on reassuring data from the U.S. that the benefits outweigh the risks. The U.S. does recommend more shots than many other countries do. But the U.S. regimen also, by definition, guards against more diseases than those of many other countries do—making it a standout course of protection, unparalleled elsewhere.
