Connect with us

Published

on

Please note: This article contains some content that our readers may find distressing. Share on Pinterest Design by Medical News Today; photograph courtesy Paolo Fu

On March 10th, when I returned from a holiday in Trentino, I developed a fever. It was not very high, about 100.04F, and, following the guidelines of the Ministry, I reported myself to the toll-free number set up by the region and requested a swab to check if I had contracted COVID-19.

I didnt receive the test because I have not been in a red zone, and I was not certain that I had been in close contact with people who had tested positive for the virus.

Over the phone, they told me to check my temperature and symptoms, but that I shouldnt warn the people I had been in contact with, in case I caused them panic. I was told I could do this later if the symptoms became worse.

The next day in Italy, the lockdown started. Offices and shops were forced to close, and nobody could leave the house without a valid reason and self-certification; any kind of meeting was forbidden, and proximity to elderly people was not recommended.

The virus hit hard. There were thousands dead in the north, and the epidemic seemed to be out of control. Streets were deserted and people left the supermarkets empty. It really seemed like war, and for many older people, this situation evoked terrible memories.

In a short time, the symptoms disappeared, but psychologically, I suffered a lot from the condition as I was unable to go out, see my friends, or visit my parents.

I had to reorganize my whole life, the way I work, and the way I relate with others. I was also unsure that I would still have a job at the end of lockdown, and this scared me a lot. Everything was changing so quickly, and all my certainties were wavering. Through My Eyes

For more advice on COVID-19 prevention and treatment, visit our coronavirus hub.Was this helpful? Chasing a diagnosis

Around March 20th, my father sickened. He had a fever and was in a state of confusion. My mother, who is visually impaired and very dependent on him, was suffering from panic.

Until that moment, I had never visited them because I knew they were at high risk due to their age, but since I could not leave them alone with my father in such conditions, I was forced to go there. My wife and my son came with me.

I called the reporting number again to urgently request the swab for my father, but they refused it. I didnt know what to do, the virus had blocked the country, and anything, even the most trivial task, was now complicated.

With great difficulty, I found a doctor who came to the house. My father had bronchitis, and he was prescribed with antibiotics. He felt very tired and didnt want to eat. For all of us, the situation was so hard.

Finally, the fever stopped, and my father got better for a day, even though he continued to feel very tired.

On March 24th, he woke up with very strong pain in his lower abdomen. We thought that it was an intestinal blockage, and we called the doctor again, but it was useless. The pain didnt decrease.

I spent the night with him, massaging his back and belly, hoping to relieve his suffering. I had to make a decision, the fear of taking him to the hospital was so big given the situation, but at home, I wouldnt know how to handle it.

On the morning of March 25th, I took him to the emergency room. Thats the last time I saw him.

They called us from the hospital saying that CT scans showed an intestinal perforation and interstitial pneumonia from COVID-19 and that the situation was very serious.

The following days were a nightmare. The lockdown didnt allow us to visit him, and, moreover, having been in contact with him, we were in compulsory quarantine. From that moment on, we could no longer go out even to shop or throw out the garbage.

These were very difficult days.

On the one hand, the concern for my fathers health and the frustration of not being able to visit or hear him; on the other, the fear for the health of my family.

Given the real possibility of being infected, I tried again to get the swab, but since we were asymptomatic, they denied it to us that time too.

I was afraid, and I didnt know what to expect. This virus can remain silent for days and then suddenly burst. I was afraid for my loved ones and myself.

I took immunosuppressants for autoimmune disease, and this could make things worse. My mother is 82 years old, and we were both at high risk. I didnt understand why they wouldnt swab us.

I tried to filter some bad news arriving from the hospital about my fathers health with my mother, for her not to be worried too much, but at the same time, I didnt want to create false illusions. Seeing her suffer made me sick.

The only lights were my wife, who had been very close to me, and my son, who filled the house with joy and happiness.

March 28th was my sons birthday, he had waited so long for it, and he would have liked to do it at the zoo with his friends, but we found ourselves locked in the house with the terror that my father would die that very day.

It was a hectic time, but in the end, we managed to organize a live party with his friends via Zoom and ordered him presents online. For a moment, we forgot everything and dedicated ourselves to him. Mourning in quarantine

Another 9 days passed by, and there were only 2 days left until the end of our quarantine.

I wanted to go out, as I felt like I couldnt take it anymore, but I needed to get my immunosuppressant shot. If I was positive it could cost me my life, I was afraid and tried again to request the swab. In the end, I got it, but only for me and my mother.

In the meantime, my father got worse, and on April 7th at 1:30 a.m., I received a call from the hospital saying that, unfortunately, he had passed away. The world collapsed on me.

I didnt know what to do anymore. My point of reference was gone. I felt lost, desperate, and, as if that wasnt enough, I was the one who had to communicate it to my mother and my brother.

That morning was endless. We were stuck at home, we had just suffered a very serious mourning, and I was forced to solve all the bureaucratic things, as soon as possible, because the hospital couldnt keep the corpse of a COVID-19 patient for long.

I called my brother, and we tried to figure out what to do since the rules imposed by the Ministry at the funeral establish that only three people can attend. Furthermore, there was no possibility to respect the Jewish religious rite.

My mother and I were still in quarantine, and we couldnt attend the funeral. At that moment, the only person who was able to go was my brother, my cousin, and a friend who accompanied him. My mother and my family attended the funeral via Zoom.

The situation was really surreal, and I felt like I was living in a nightmare. By the way, on the day of the funeral, they were supposed to come home to swab us, and I was terrified that they could arrive during the service. Thankfully, they arrived later.

They showed up at our house with an ambulance and started preparing themselves. They put two overalls on top of each other, shoe covers, two pairs of gloves, hoods, visors, and masks, and headed towards our apartment before the incredulous eyes of neighbors from other condominiums.

They rang the door and told us to go out to the ground floor, against all privacy, to swab us. We felt dirty.

In the meantime, the quarantine was over, but we had to wait for the results of the swab to come out in 3 days time. I was positive, and my mom was negative.

At that point, they had to come and swab my wife and son. I got another one for my mother too. She was positive at that time, too, while the rest of the family was negative, so we decided, for their own safety, to send them to another place to pass the quarantine.

It was a difficult decision because, without my wife and son, the house is empty and silent. Everything has changed

I am tired and stressed. More than the virus, what really kills me is this forced confinement and the lack of affection from my loved ones and friends.

One evening, maybe becuse of stress, I was struck by colic. The pain was very strong, and my mother was in panic.

I wanted to call an ambulance but, being positive, they would take me to a COVID center, and my mother would stay alone, and I didnt feel like it.

Luckily, I was able to calm the pain, but the idea of not being able to get sick, not being able to call a doctor, and not being able to go to the pharmacy because Im positive is very distressing; its like being in a science fiction movie.

In order to be considered not contagious anymore, one must have two consecutive negative swabs.

On May 3rd, I made my first negative swab. Unfortunately, the second one on May 5th was positive again, and I had to stay at home for another 15 days.

In the end, on May 20th, after two negatives swabs, I was finally free! The quarantine was over, and I could go out again! It was a really strange feeling, and I felt like I was free after a long period in jail.

Now, Im back to normal life again, although nothing is normal anymore.

The schools are still closed, and the kids miss their friends. They have difficulties in adapting to this new situation. The shops and the restaurant are often empty, and the people look to each other in a different way.

This experience has marked me a lot, and I miss the little things I did every day.

We believe we live in a society ready for anything, but a virus was enough to bring a country to its knees and deprive people of the most important things they have: the love of their loved ones, freedom, and physical contact with the people they love.

After the arrival of the virus, everything has changed, and I really dont know if we can go back to normal, to the world we used to know.

Continue Reading

Business

PPE Medpro will be pursued ‘with everything we’ve got’ Wes Streeting says

Published

on

By

PPE Medpro will be pursued 'with everything we've got' Wes Streeting says

The Government has vowed to pursue a company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone for millions of pounds paid for defective PPE at the height of the COVID pandemic after a High Court deadline passed without repayment.

Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro, a company founded by Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and promoted in government by the Tory peer, was in breach of contract and gave it two weeks to repay the £122m plus interest of £23m.

In a statement, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: “At a time of national crisis, PPE Medpro sold the previous government substandard kit and pocketed taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Money latest: How to add 24% to your home’s value

“PPE Medpro has failed to meet the deadline to pay – they still owe us over £145m, with interest now accruing daily.”

It is understood that is being charged at a rate of 8%.

More from Money

“We will pursue PPE Medpro with everything we’ve got to get these funds back where they belong – in our NHS,” Mr Streeting concluded.

Earlier a spokesman for Mr Barrowman and the consortium behind the company said the government had not responded to an offer from PPE Medpro to discuss a settlement.

“Very disappointingly, the government has made no effort to respond or seek to enter into discussions,” he said.

During the trial PPE Medpro offered to pay £23m to settle the case but was rejected by the Department of Health and Social Care.

While Mr Barrowman has described himself as the “ultimate beneficial owner” of PPE Medpro, and says £29m of profit from the deal was paid into a trust benefitting his family including Baroness Mone and her children, he was never a director and the couple are not personally liable for the money.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

£122m bill that may never be paid

PPE Medpro filed for insolvency the day before Mrs Justice Cockerill’s finding of breach of contract was published, and the company’s most recent accounts show assets of just £666,000.

Court-appointed administrators will now be responsible for recovering as much money as possible on behalf of creditors, principally the DHSC.

With PPE Medpro in administration and potentially limited avenues to recover funds, there is a risk that the government may recover nothing while incurring further legal expenses.

In June 2020, PPE Medpro won contracts worth a total of £203m to provide 210m masks and 25m surgical gowns after Baroness Mone contacted ministers including Michael Gove on the company’s behalf.

While the £81m mask contract was fulfilled the gowns were rejected for failing sterility standards, and in 2022 the DHSC sued. Earlier this month Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled that PPE Medpro was in breach of contract and liable to repay the full amount.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Baroness Mone ‘should resign’

Mr Barrowman has previously named several other companies as part of the gown supply including two registered in the UK, and last week his spokesman said there was a “strong case” for the administrator to pursue them for the money.

One of the companies named has denied any connection to PPE Medpro and two others have not responded to requests for comment.

Insolvency experts say that administrators and creditors, in this case the government, may have some recourse to pursue individuals and entities beyond the liable company, but any process is likely to be lengthy and expensive.

Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, told Sky News: “The administrators will want to look at what’s happened to what look like significant profits made on these contracts.

“If I was looking at this I would want to establish the exact timeline, at what point were the profits taken out.

“They may also want to consider whether there is a claim for wrongful trading, because that effectively pierces the corporate veil of protection of a limited company, and can allow proceedings against company officers personally.

“The net of a director can also be expanded to shadow directors, people sitting in the background quite clearly with a degree of control of the management of the company, in which case some claims may rest against them.”

A spokesman for Forvis Mazars, one of the joint administrators of PPE Medpro, did not comment other than to confirm the firm’s appointment.

Continue Reading

Business

£5bn Bitcoin fraud mastermind had device containing £67m in secret pocket

Published

on

By

£5bn Bitcoin fraud mastermind had device containing £67m in secret pocket

The mastermind of a £5bn Chinese investment fraud was found with a device containing £67m of cryptocurrency in a secret pocket of her jogging bottoms when she was arrested after years on the run, a court has heard.

Prosecutors are setting up a compensation scheme after Yadi Zhang, 47, conned around 128,000 Chinese investors into fraudulent wealth schemes between 2014 and 2017.

Zhang, who is also known as Zhimin Qian, admitted money laundering charges after police discovered more than 61,000 Bitcoin, now worth more than £5bn, in digital wallets, in the UK’s biggest ever cryptocurrency seizure.

She arrived in the UK on a false St Kitts and Nevis passport in September 2017 before coming to the attention of police after trying to buy some of London’s most expensive properties.

Zhang rented a £17,000-a-month house in Hampstead, north London. Pic: CPS
Image:
Zhang rented a £17,000-a-month house in Hampstead, north London. Pic: CPS

Zhang vanished after police raided her £5m six-bedroom rented house near Hampstead Heath in north London in 2018, but was finally arrested in York last year.

In written legal arguments, Martin Evans KC representing the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, said a ledger and passwords were found in a purpose-made concealed pocket in the jogging bottoms she was wearing.

She revealed the access code for two wallets during interviews in prison, leading investigators to cryptocurrency worth around £67m.

The stash has been added to the £5bn Bitcoin hoard, which has reportedly been earmarked by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to help plug the hole in the public finances.

The fortune is at the centre of a High Court battle between the UK government and thousands of Chinese victims, who want to recover their investment and say it should reflect the huge rise in the value of Bitcoin.

Law firm Fieldfisher, which is representing around 1,000 victims, said some have lost their life savings and many are old and vulnerable.

The court heard the DPP is also setting up a compensation scheme for the victims not represented in court, although no further details have been given.

The judge, Mr Justice Turner, will make orders on the case at a later date.

Read more from Sky News:
Is Bitcoin’s price sustainable?
Royal Mail fined over late letters

Zhang pleaded guilty to charges of possessing criminal property and transferring criminal property on or before the 23 April 2024 last month and is in custody awaiting sentencing in November.

Jian Wen, 43, was jailed for six years and eight months last year after being found guilty of one count of money laundering between October 2017 and January 2022 relating to 150 Bitcoin, now worth around £12.5m.

Jian Wen. Pic: CPS
Image:
Jian Wen. Pic: CPS

Her trial heard that Wen, who previously worked in a Chinese takeaway, was not involved in the alleged fraud but acted as a “front person” to help disguise the source of the money.

The court heard how the two women travelled the world, spending tens of thousands of pounds on designer clothes, jewellery and shoes.

Seng Hok Ling, 47, is said to have replaced Wen as Zhang’s “butler”, organising helpers and booking Airbnbs, including in Scotland, for the fugitive while she was on the run.

Seng Hok Ling. Pic: Met Police
Image:
Seng Hok Ling. Pic: Met Police

Police found Zhang after carrying out surveillance of Ling and seized assets including encrypted devices, cash, gold and cryptocurrency.

Ling, a Malaysian national from Matlock in Derbyshire, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to entering into a money laundering arrangement with Zhang on or before 23 April 2024 and will be sentenced alongside her.

Prosecutors said Zhang masterminded a scam in China, before converting the money into cryptocurrency to get it out of the country.

Continue Reading

UK

PPE Medpro will be pursued ‘with everything we’ve got’ Wes Streeting says

Published

on

By

PPE Medpro will be pursued 'with everything we've got' Wes Streeting says

The Government has vowed to pursue a company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone for millions of pounds paid for defective PPE at the height of the COVID pandemic after a High Court deadline passed without repayment.

Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro, a company founded by Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and promoted in government by the Tory peer, was in breach of contract and gave it two weeks to repay the £122m plus interest of £23m.

In a statement, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: “At a time of national crisis, PPE Medpro sold the previous government substandard kit and pocketed taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Money latest: How to add 24% to your home’s value

“PPE Medpro has failed to meet the deadline to pay – they still owe us over £145m, with interest now accruing daily.”

It is understood that is being charged at a rate of 8%.

More from Money

“We will pursue PPE Medpro with everything we’ve got to get these funds back where they belong – in our NHS,” Mr Streeting concluded.

Earlier a spokesman for Mr Barrowman and the consortium behind the company said the government had not responded to an offer from PPE Medpro to discuss a settlement.

“Very disappointingly, the government has made no effort to respond or seek to enter into discussions,” he said.

During the trial PPE Medpro offered to pay £23m to settle the case but was rejected by the Department of Health and Social Care.

While Mr Barrowman has described himself as the “ultimate beneficial owner” of PPE Medpro, and says £29m of profit from the deal was paid into a trust benefitting his family including Baroness Mone and her children, he was never a director and the couple are not personally liable for the money.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

£122m bill that may never be paid

PPE Medpro filed for insolvency the day before Mrs Justice Cockerill’s finding of breach of contract was published, and the company’s most recent accounts show assets of just £666,000.

Court-appointed administrators will now be responsible for recovering as much money as possible on behalf of creditors, principally the DHSC.

With PPE Medpro in administration and potentially limited avenues to recover funds, there is a risk that the government may recover nothing while incurring further legal expenses.

In June 2020, PPE Medpro won contracts worth a total of £203m to provide 210m masks and 25m surgical gowns after Baroness Mone contacted ministers including Michael Gove on the company’s behalf.

While the £81m mask contract was fulfilled the gowns were rejected for failing sterility standards, and in 2022 the DHSC sued. Earlier this month Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled that PPE Medpro was in breach of contract and liable to repay the full amount.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Baroness Mone ‘should resign’

Mr Barrowman has previously named several other companies as part of the gown supply including two registered in the UK, and last week his spokesman said there was a “strong case” for the administrator to pursue them for the money.

One of the companies named has denied any connection to PPE Medpro and two others have not responded to requests for comment.

Insolvency experts say that administrators and creditors, in this case the government, may have some recourse to pursue individuals and entities beyond the liable company, but any process is likely to be lengthy and expensive.

Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, told Sky News: “The administrators will want to look at what’s happened to what look like significant profits made on these contracts.

“If I was looking at this I would want to establish the exact timeline, at what point were the profits taken out.

“They may also want to consider whether there is a claim for wrongful trading, because that effectively pierces the corporate veil of protection of a limited company, and can allow proceedings against company officers personally.

“The net of a director can also be expanded to shadow directors, people sitting in the background quite clearly with a degree of control of the management of the company, in which case some claims may rest against them.”

A spokesman for Forvis Mazars, one of the joint administrators of PPE Medpro, did not comment other than to confirm the firm’s appointment.

Continue Reading

Trending