This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Subtitling, Language instruction
Expertise
Specializes in:
Food & Drink
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama
Tourism & Travel
Education / Pedagogy
Journalism
Also works in:
Law (general)
Real Estate
Law: Contract(s)
Government / Politics
Accounting
Finance (general)
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
Certificates, Diplomas, Licenses, CVs
Media / Multimedia
Internet, e-Commerce
IT (Information Technology)
Marketing
More
Less
Rates
Payment methods accepted
Wire transfer, PayPal
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 2
Croatian to English: STRICT QUARANTINE: A necessary measure or a costly mistake? General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - Croatian Otkad je počela pandemija covida-19, a osobito nakon što su je neke zemlje uspjele staviti pod kontrolu, mnogi se pitaju jesu li drastične mjere kojima se vodila borba protiv virusa bile pretjerane, odnosno je li stroga karantena u koju je stavljen dobar dio svijeta bila nužna ili je bila preskupa greška.
Ili kako je to nedavno formulirao američki predsjednik Donald Trump: je li lijek bio gori od same bolesti?
Ovo pitanje ima smisla jer je lockdown većeg dijela svijeta, među ostalim, pokrenuo dramatičan porast nezaposlenosti i jednu od najvećih gospodarskih kriza u stotinu godina, a poznato je da i recesije i nezaposlenost mogu odnositi živote i uzrokovati brojne dugotrajne štete.
Paradoks uspješne prevencije bolesti
Na početku valja podsjetiti na izuzetno važan, a naročito u kontekstu gore navedenog pitanja, paradoks prevencije na koji je upozorio arhitekt njemačke strategije borbe protiv covida-19 epidemiolog Christian Drosten, čelnik njemačkog Instituta za virologiju u bolnici Charité u Berlinu, jedan od ljudi koji su 2003. otkrili virus koji uzrokuje SARS,
"Ljudi u Njemačkoj vide da bolnice nisu pretrpane pa ne razumiju zašto su se dućani morali zatvarati. Gledaju samo ono što se zbiva ovdje, a ne i situaciju u, primjerice, New Yorku ili u Španjolskoj. To je paradoks prevencije i za mnoge Nijemce ja sam zločesti tip koji šteti gospodarstvu", rekao je Drosten u razgovoru za britanski Guardian.
Paradoks prevencije vrijedi za Njemačku, a mogao bi još i više vrijediti za Hrvatsku
To što vrijedi za Njemačku, moglo bi vrijediti još i više za Hrvatsku koja je među najuspješnijim zemljama svijeta po malenom broju oboljelih i umrlih od covida-19, ali i jedna od zemalja koje su do nedavno imale najstrože mjere lockdowna.
Paradoks prevencije vrlo jasno dolazi do izražaja kada je riječ o zaraznim bolestima koje se mogu uspješno sprječavati cijepljenjem, primjerice o ospicama. Što se svijet uspješnije bori protiv ospica i što ih duže nema, to se više ljudi pita je li šteta od prevencije, odnosno od nuspojava cijepljenja veća od samih ospica.
Naravno, štete od svjetskog lockdowna zbog covida-19 neusporedivo su ozbiljnije od posljedica nuspojava cijepljenja pa je i pitanje iz naslova također neusporedivo opravdanije. No tu treba paziti da se ne pretvorimo u generale nakon bitke, odnosno da, kada jednog dana shvatimo da smo možda mogli napraviti ovo ili da smo trebali ono, ne kažemo: "Eto vidite, ja sam to od početka tvrdio!"
U ovom tekstu pokušat ćemo dati odgovor na najvažnija pitanja o (ne)opravdanosti uvođenja sveopće karantene u suradnji s doc. dr. sc. Aleksandrom Džakulom, stručnjakom za javno zdravstvo iz Škole narodnog zdravlja Andrija Štampar, i epidemiologom dr. sc. Brankom Kolarićem s Medicinskog fakulteta u Rijeci.
Kad se pojavi pandemija nove zarazne bolesti, najvažnije je hitno procijeniti koliko je opasna
No, prije nego što ozbiljnije načnemo naslovnu temu, važno je istaknuti da je za javno-zdravstveni odgovor na pandemiju novih zaraznih bolesti ključno već u ranoj fazi procijeniti opasnost koju predstavlja novi virus, a on nam je u početku uvijek velika nepoznanica. Ako je on relativno bezopasan, poput prehlada ili neke blaže gripe, onda nema smisla držati cijeli svijet u karanteni.
No, ako je značajno opasniji od gripe, a pritom još nema ni djelotvornih cjepiva ni lijekova, onda je jasno da ga treba nastojati zaustaviti što je moguće prije. Prioritet je spašavati živote. To je razlog zbog kojeg su znanstvenici od samog početka nastojali procijeniti koliko je SARS-CoV-2 opasan – koliko je zarazan, koliko teške bolesti uzrokuje, koliki postotak oboljelih razvija teške simptome, koliko urušava bolničke sustave, koliko se lako širi bez simptoma, kolika je smrtnost među oboljelima itd.
Kolarić kaže da su se u tom kontekstu često radile usporedbe s gripom jer nam je ona vrlo dobro poznata bolest. „Ona je dovoljno ozbiljna da se rizične skupine protiv nje svake godine cijepe i čuvaju, ali ne toliko ozbiljna da bismo zbog nje cijeli svijet držali u karanteni. Naravno, to vrijedi sve dok nas ugrožavaju dobro poznati sezonski sojevi gripe, dok se ne pojavi neki novi, vrlo opasan pandemijski soj. Prehlade su još manje opasne pa se zbog njih uglavnom nećemo ni cijepiti, a kamoli zatvarati“, tumači Kolarić.
Računanje smrtnosti i miješanje krušaka i jabuka
To je jedan od razloga zbog kojih se u proteklih nekoliko mjeseci pod posebnom lupom nalazio letalitet covida-19, sada već i laicima dobro znani CFR (eng. case fatality ratio), omjer potvrđeno umrlih u odnosu na broj potvrđeno zaraženih.
Tu treba pojasniti da su mnogi laici radili brojne greške i uspoređivali neusporedive brojeve. Naime, kada stručnjaci na početku epidemije nove zarazne bolesti pokušavaju odrediti CFR, oni nikako ne mogu znati precizne brojke zaraženih, osobito ako ima puno oboljelih s blagim simptomima ili bez simptoma, jer ih je nemoguće sve otkriti bez masovnog testiranja. To osobito vrijedi kada su zdravstveni sustavi prekapacitirani pa se radi trijaža čak i u testiranju, odnosno kada se testiraju samo pacijenti s težim simptomima.
Tek s napredovanjem pandemije javnost, odnosno njezin znanstveno pismeniji dio, kroz komunikaciju ozbiljnih stručnjaka u ozbiljnijim medijima, dobio je priliku upoznati se s funkcijom i konceptom CFR-a, ali i s drugim načinima mjerenja težine zaraznih bolesti. Primjerice, počelo se govoriti da se opasnost covida-19 može bolje procijeniti ako se radi više testiranja, uključujući i serološka koja pokazuju da netko ima antitijela, što znači da je obolio mada možda nije imao simptome. No, to je zapravo sasvim druga mjera koja se naziva IFR (infection fatality risk), koja se uglavnom istražuje serološkim testiranjima u bogatijim zemljama nakon što epidemija prođe.
Neki su u svoje procjene upleli i tzv. specifični mortalitet, što je treća vrsta mjerenja koja pokazuje koliki broj smrti uzrokuje neka bolest (ne nužno zarazna) na milijun živih stanovnika.
Konačno, posljednjih tjedana sve se više govori o tzv. višku smrtnosti. To je pak važna epidemiološka informacija koja nam govori koliki će porast smrtnosti u određenom periodu uzrokovati neka zarazna bolest, bilo da su te smrti izravno ili neizravno uzrokovane bolešću.
Translation - English SINCE the COVID-19 pandemic onset, and especially after some countries have successfully put it under control, many have been wondering whether the drastic measures used in fighting off the virus have been excessive. Has the strict quarantine of the large part of the world been a necessary measure or a costly mistake?
Or in the words of the president of the USA, Donald Trump: is the cure worse than the disease itself?
The question makes sense since the global lockdown has launched a dramatic rise in unemployment and one of the most significant economic crises in the last hundred years. It is a well-known fact that the recession and the high unemployment rate can take lives and cause many long-term impacts.
The paradox of a successful disease prevention
At the very beginning, it's necessary to bring to mind, especially in the context of the question mentioned above, an important prevention paradox which was pointed out by Germany's leading expert in the fight against the COVID-19, an epidemiologist Christian Drosten, director of the German Institute for Virology in Charité in Berlin. Back in 2003, he was one of the discoverers of the virus that causes SARS.
"In Germany, people see that the hospitals are not overwhelmed, and they don't understand why their shops have to shut. They only look at what's happening here, not at the situation in, say, New York or Spain. This is the prevention paradox, and for many Germans, I'm the evil guy who is crippling the economy," said Drosten for the British Guardian.
The prevention paradox applies to Germany but could apply even more to Croatia
The prevention paradox applies to Germany but could apply even more to Croatia, which is among the most successful countries in the world with a small number of cases and deaths from COVID-19, but also one of the countries with the strictest measures until recently.
The prevention paradox is evident when it comes to vaccine-preventable infectious diseases, such as measles. The more the world fights the measles and the longer they are gone, the more and more people are wondering whether the damage from the prevention, i.e., from vaccination side effects, is even more significant than the measles themselves.
Of course, the damage caused by the global lockdown due to COVID-19 is far more severe than the consequences for vaccination side effects, so the question from the title is also surpassingly more justified. It's easy to be wise after the event, but we have to be careful, i.e., once we realize what we could have done differently, we should not say: "Ok, see, I have been right all along!"
In this text, we are going to try answering the most critical questions related to the justification for the implementation of strict quarantine in collaboration with Aleksandar Dzakula, M.D., public health expert of the Andrija Stampar School of Public Health, and with Branko Kolaric, M.D., an epidemiologist from The Faculty of Medicine in Rijeka.
In case of a new infectious disease pandemic, the most crucial step is to urgently estimate how dangerous it is
But before we seriously dig into the topic, it's important to point out that, for the public health's answer to a new infectious disease pandemic, a critical factor in early stages is to estimate how dangerous a new virus is, which always has a mysterious outset. If the virus is relatively harmless, such as a cold or a milder form of the flu, there's no need for a global quarantine.
But if a virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu, and at the same time, there's no effective vaccination or drugs, it becomes clear that the virus should be stopped as soon as possible. Saving lives is the number one priority. That's the reason why scientists tried to estimate from the very beginning how dangerous SARS-CoV-2 is - how contagious it is, how many serious illnesses it causes, what percentage of infected people develop severe symptoms, does it threaten the healthcare systems, how easily does it spread without symptoms, what is the mortality rate among the infected people, etc.
Kolaric says that people often compare COVID-19 with the seasonal flu, a well-known disease.
"The flu is serious enough for the risk groups to receive vaccines every year, but not serious enough to put the whole world in quarantine. Of course, that applies only in cases of a threat posed by well-known seasonal strains of the flu, and not by a new, very dangerous strain of a pandemic disease. The common cold is even less dangerous, and we will not even take a vaccine for it, let alone put people in quarantine," explains Kolaric.
Mortality rate calculations and mixing apples and oranges
That is one of the reasons the mortality rate of COVID-19 has been under the magnifying glass in the last couple of months. Already well-known even to laymen, case fatality ratio (CFR) is the proportion of deaths from a specific disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease.
It needs to be clarified that many laymen made many mistakes and compared incomparable numbers. When experts try to determine the CFR at the beginning of an emerging infectious disease epidemic, there is no way to know the exact number of infected people, especially in case of a large number of infected individuals with mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. It is impossible to track down all of them without massive testing. It especially applies in cases of healthcare system overload, doing triage even in testing, i.e., when only patients with severe symptoms are tested.
Only with the progression of the pandemic, the scientifically literate public, through the communication of real experts in serious media, got a chance to get to know the function and the concept of CFR, as well as the other ways of measuring the severity of infectious diseases. For example, it was being said that more testing could give a better picture of the danger of COVID-19, including a serologic test that shows if an individual has antibodies, which would mean a possible infection, even though there are no symptoms. But in fact, that is an entirely different measure called infection fatality risk (IFR), which is mostly being explored with serologic tests in richer countries after the outbreak.
Some have involved the so-called disease-specific mortality in their assessments, which is the third type of measuring that shows how many deaths that are caused by a specific disease (not necessarily infectious) occur in one million people.
Finally, in the last couple of weeks, there has been much talk about the so-called excess mortality. It's important epidemiological information about the rise in mortality in a certain period caused by an infectious disease, whether these deaths are directly or indirectly caused by the disease.
Croatian to English: These goals changed the history of national football General field: Other Detailed field: Sports / Fitness / Recreation
Source text - Croatian Povijest HNL-a je kratka, ali burna. Osim umijeća na terenu, povijest HNL-a je u barem jednakoj mjeri definirana i onime što se događalo izvan terena, bilo da se radi o sudačkim greškama, velikim rivalstvima ili čak borbi za prevlast u cijelom domaćem nogometu.
Donosimo vam popis najbitnijih golova u povijesti HNL-a. Svaki od njih ključan je dio jedne HNL priče, a mnogi od njih su ostavili posljedice na kompletnu sliku hrvatskog nogometa i nakon 10 ili 15 godina.
Zoran Vulić za Hajduk u direktnom okršaju za prvaka (1994.)
Zagreb je četiri kola prije kraja čekao Hajduk u Kranjčevićevoj. Bio je to direktan okršaj za prvaka u koji su ušli bodovno poravnati i treće gostovanje Hajduka u Kranjčevićevoj u HNL-u, a oba puta su izgubili. Ipak, u 60. minuti je Vulić potegnuo iz slobodnog udarca s 35 metara i svladao Miroslava Žitnjaka na domaćem golu. Titula je otišla u Split unatoč porazu od Rijeke u predzadnjem kolu, a Zagreb je istraumatiziran ovakvim porazom već u idućem kolu izgubio bod (tada je pobjeda vrijedila dva boda) u Zadru i oprostio se od titule.
Mario Meštrović za Hajduk koji je pomogao Croatiji da uzme naslov (1996.)
Igra se zadnje kolo prvenstva u kojem su tri kluba u utrci za naslov - Varteks, Dinamo i Hajduk. Varteks gostuje kod Hajduka i pobjedom sigurno uzima naslov prvaka. Dinamo mora svladati Zagreb u Kranjčevićevoj i nadati se da Hajduk neće dozvoliti Varteksovu pobjedu. Hajduk je prvak samo u slučaju da svladaju Varteks, a Dinamo ne pobijedi gradskog rivala.
U 79. minuti utakmice dogodio se trenutak za povijest. Meštrović je zabio za vodstvo Hajduka, a na kraju je to ostao jedini pogodak na susretu. Bio je to jedini slučaj u povijesti u kojem su Bad Blue Boysi napravili bakljadu za gol Hajduka. Naime, Dinamo je uvjerljivom predstavom u Kranjčevićevoj svoj posao odradio, ali je osluškivao što se događa na Poljudu. U trenutku kad je Hajduk zabio, bilo je jasno da će Varteks teško okrenuti tu prednost i Modri su počeli slaviti.
Hajduk je tako mrskom rivalu pomogao da dođe do naslova. I premda će se tadašnja uprava pred vlastitim navijačima opravdavati kako su se nadali Dinamovom kiksu i naslovu prvaka, postoji i druga strana priče. Hajduk je tada vodio HDZ-ov lobi i nije nimalo nezamislivo da je po direktivi centrale stranke iz Zagreba Hajduku došla zapovijed kako mora pomoći Croatiji. S obzirom na to da je Croatia već na poluvremenu vodila s 0:3, jedna od dvije verzija se čini kao bliža istini.
Postoji i legendarna priča kako se helikopter s crnom torbom spustio na pomoćni teren Hajduka. U njemu se nalazio novac koji je vrhuška HDZ-a poslala kao zalog za Hajdukovu pomoć Croatiji.
Varaždinci su bili izrazito nezadovoljni suđenjem na toj utakmici. Uz nedosuđeni penal legendarna je izjava njihovog tadašnjeg trenera Luke Bonačića: "Pomoćni sudac je izgledao kao Kip slobode. Čitavo drugo poluvrijeme nije spuštao zastavicu, svaki napad nam je svirao zaleđe." Jedan od najupečatljivijih trenutaka nakon utakmice je onaj u kojem današnji izbornik reprezentacije Zlatko Dalić plače u svlačionici.
Stanko Bubalo za Osijek u najkontroverznijoj utakmici hrvatskog sporta (1999.)
Najpoznatija utakmica u povijesti hrvatskog nogometa. Rijeka na domaćem terenu treba pobjedu za prvi naslov u povijesti. Na kraju prvog poluvremena domaćina je šokirao Stanko Bubalo koji je zabio za vodstvo Osijeka. Rijeka je izjednačila pogotkom Muse iz sumnjivog penala. Igrala se 88. minuta, ubačaj s desne strane Barnabasa Stipanovicsa nekako je došao na nogu Admira Hasančića, legendarnog bosanskohercegovačkog nogometaša koji je pogotkom zapalio Kantridu. Ispostavilo se na samo nekoliko sekundi.
Sudac Zoran Krečak donio je najpoznatiju sudačku odluku u povijesti hrvatskog sporta i dosudio "fantomsko zaleđe" koje je poslalo titulu na Maksimir. Sudačka i logistička protežiranost Croatije tih godina dosegla je vrhunac baš na toj utakmici kada je postalo jasno da je gotovo nemoguće postati prvak dok je na vlasti aktualni HDZ i Franjo Tuđman.
Iako je završna utakmica te sezone najpoznatija zahvaljujući sudačkim intervencijama, ključan trenutak sezone dogodio se ranije, kada je Rijeka ugostila Hajduk na Kantridi. U spektakularnoj utakmici punoj preokreta, do sudačke nadoknade vodila je s 3:2 i u tom slučaju bi otišla na praktično nedostižnih osam bodova prednosti nad Modrima. Ipak, gol Marina Biliškova u zadnjim sekundama utakmice vratio je i Hajduk i Croatiju u život i sveo odluku o prvaku na posljednju utakmicu sezone.
Translation - English The history of the Croatian Football League is short but turbulent. The history of the Croatian Football League is, at least to the same extent, defined by the skills on football fields as well as the events outside of the football field, whether it were referees' mistakes, great rivalries, or even a fight for asserting dominance in the entire national football.
We bring you a list of the most important goals in the history of the Croatian Football League. Each of them is a crucial part of each story of the Croatian Football League, and many of them left consequences in the overall image of Croatian football even 10 or 15 years later.
Zoran Vulic's goal for Hajduk in the direct battle for the championship title (1994)
Zagreb waited for Hajduk four rounds before the end in the Kranjcevic Street Stadium. It was a direct battle for the championship title, where they entered with equal scores, and Hajduk's third away match in Kranjcevic Street Stadium in the Croatian National League, but they lost both times. However, in the sixtieth minute, Vulic took a free-kick from 35 meters and overcame Miroslav Zitnjak at the home goal. Split won the title despite the defeat by Rijeka in the penultimate matchday. Traumatized by this defeat, Zagreb lost a point as soon as the next round (winning counted for two points back then) in Zadar and said goodbye to the championship title.
Mario Mestrovic's goal for Hajduk which helped Croatia to win the championship title (1996)
The championship's last round is being played with three clubs in the battle for the championship title- Varteks, Dinamo and, Hajduk. Hajduk hosts Varteks, and by winning, Varteks certainly clinches the title. Dinamo has to defeat Zagreb in Kranjcevic Street Stadium and hope that Hajduk won't allow Varteks's victory. Hajduk is the champion only if they beat Varteks, and if Dinamo doesn't win against the city rival.
In the seventy-ninth minute of the match, a historical moment happened. Mestrovic’s goal gave Hajduk the lead, and it remained the only score of the match. It was the only time in history that the Bad Blue Boys lit their torches to celebrate Hajduk's goal. Dinamo did its job by pulling a convincing show in Kranjcevic Street Stadium, but it also paid attention to what's happening in Poljud. The moment that Hajduk scored, it was clear that it would be difficult for Varteks to gain back that advantage, and Dinamo fans started celebrating.
That's the way Hajduk helped its bitter rival to win the title. Although the former management justified itself to their fans that they hoped for Dinamo's blunder and Hajduk's championship title, there's another side of the story. At the time, Hajduk was managed by the Croatian Democratic Party's lobby, and it's not hard to imagine that Hajduk was ordered to help Croatia Zagreb (the former name of Dinamo) by the central party's directive from Zagreb. Given that Croatia Zagreb led 0:3 at half-time, one of the two versions seems to be closer to the truth.
There's also a legendary story that a helicopter with a black bag landed on the Hajduk's training ground. There was money inside that the top brass of the Croatian Democratic Party had sent as a pledge for Hajduk's help to Croatia Zagreb.
Varteks fans were extremely dissatisfied with the referee's decisions on the match. Along with an unawarded penalty kick, the then manager Luka Bonacic's statement is legendary: "An assistant referee looked like the Statue of Liberty. He hasn't lowered the flag throughout the entire half-time, he signaled offside every time we were in possession of the ball." One of the most impressive post-match moments was when the present-day Croatian national team manager, Zlatko Dalic, cried in the locker room.
Stanko Bubalo's goal for Osijek in the most controversial match of the Croatian sport (1999)
It's the best-known match in the history of Croatian football. Rijeka needs a victory on their home turf to win the first title in history. At the end of the first half, Stanko Bubalo's goal for Osijek's leadership shocked the home team. Rijeka tied the score with Musa's goal from a suspicious penalty kick. It was eighty-eighth minute of the match, Barnabas Stipanovics’s throw-in from the right somehow came under Admir Hasancic's feet, the legendary Bosnia and Herzegovina's football player, he scored the goal, and Kantrida went crazy. Only for a few seconds, as it turned out.
The referee Zoran Krecak made the most famous refereeing decision in the history of the Croatian sport and awarded "a phantom offside," which sent the title to Maksimir. The referees' and logistical favoring of Dinamo during those years reached its peak right in that match when it became evident that it's almost impossible to win the championship while the Croatian Democratic Party and Franjo Tudjman were in power.
Although refereeing interventions made the final match of the season the most famous, the key moment of the season happened earlier when Rijeka hosted Hajduk in Kantrida. In a spectacular match full of turnovers, Rijeka was leading 3:2 until the stoppage time, and in that case, they would have gone to a practically unreachable eight points lead over the Blues. But Marin Biliskov's goal in the last seconds brought Hajduk and Dinamo to life and brought the decision on the champion down to the last match of the season.
More
Less
Translation education
Master's degree - Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Experience
Years of experience: 8. Registered at ProZ.com: Sep 2015. Became a member: Nov 2020.
Member since Nov '20
Expertise 