Category: Corona Virus

Cannabis use is linked to an increased risk of more serious COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admissionsimilar to risks from tobacco useaccording to a study today in JAMA Network Open from researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

As cannabis use becomes legal in many states and is used for medical purposes, the drug has developed somewhat of a "health halo," with many Americans considering it healthier than tobacco or alcohol.

"What we found is that cannabis use is not harmless in the context of COVID-19. People who reported yes to current cannabis use, at any frequency, were more likely to require hospitalization and intensive care than those who did not use cannabis," said senior study author Li-Shiun Chen, MD, MPH, ScD, in a press release from Washington University School of Medicine.

The study, based on outcomes among 72,501 people seen for COVID-19 at centers in a major Midwestern healthcare system during the first 2 years of the pandemic, offers an important take on the risks associated with cannabis use, especially in comparison to tobacco use.

Among the study participants, 51,006 (70.4%) needed hospitalization, 4,725 (6.5%) required an ICU visit, and 2,717 (3.7%) died. The average age was 48.9 years, 59.7% were female and 40.3% male, 27.6% were Black, and 69.6% were White.

In total, 68.8% had at least one comorbidity that was identified as potentially affecting COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

The authors found that, of the study participants, 13.4% currently smoked; 24.4% formerly smoked; and 9.7% reported current use of cannabis.

The authors calculated risks for hospitalization, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality. They found that cannabis use was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68 to 1.93) and ICU admission (OR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.41) but not with all-cause mortality (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.14.)

Current tobacco smoking, as noted in previous studies, was associated with all three worse outcomes for COVID-19. Current tobacco smoking was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.62 to 1.82), ICU admission (OR 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.34), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.37, 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.57) after adjusting for other factors.

"Most of the evidence suggesting that cannabis is good for you comes from studies in cells or animals," Chen said. "The advantage of our study is that it is in people and uses real-world health-care data collected across multiple sites over an extended time period. All the outcomes were verified: hospitalization, ICU stay, death. Using this data set, we were able to confirm the well-established effects of smoking, which suggests that the data are reliable."

"Given the rising availability of cannabis, these findings also contribute to the existing limited research on potential effects of cannabis use on COVID-19 outcomes," the authors concluded. "Overall, this research calls for further investigation into the associations of tobacco and cannabis use with COVID-19 outcomes."

Given the rising availability of cannabis, these findings also contribute to the existing limited research on potential effects of cannabis use on COVID-19 outcomes

First author Nicholas Griffith, MD, a medical resident at Washington University, was a medical student at Washington University when he led the study. "People were asked a yes-or-no question: 'Have you used cannabis in the past year?' That gave us enough information to establish that if you use cannabis, your health-care journey will be different, but we can't know how much cannabis you have to use, or whether it makes a difference whether you smoke it or eat edibles.

"Those are questions we'd really like the answers to. I hope this study opens the door to more research on the health effects of cannabis."

Follow this link:

Cannabis use linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Maybe its the way his mind works or maybe its the brain worms but presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a moth to the flame of conspiracy theories. Heres another one he just cant seem to quit: the notion that Covid-19 was targeted to spare the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews its most damaging effects.

Kennedy whose uncle was a champion of the science that took America to the moon first uncorked the moonbat notion last summer at a dinner party. In comments that were caught on video and published by the New York Post, Kennedy said of Covid-19: There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. He further asserted that Covid-19 is targeted to attack caucasians and Black people, and that the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.

Kennedys conspiratorial notions were soon widely blasted, including in The New York Times, which ran the unvarnished news headline: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Airs Bigoted New Covid Conspiracy Theory About Jews and Chinese. As the controversy swelled, Kennedy posted on X that he was being unfairly maligned: I have never, ever suggested that the Covid-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. He nonetheless added that Covid-19 serves as a proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons. Despite having voiced the argument that the virus was ethnically targeted, Kennedy wrote that he never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered.

Fast forward to the present and Kennedy is again misconstruing science around the deadly virus. A TV station in Maine aired an interview last week that characterized Kennedy as doubling down on his original conspiratorial sentiment, showing a clip of Kennedy insisting: This is a scientific study. Its not a racist statement. Its just the truth.

That news segment, with News Center Maine reporter Donovan Lynch, is quite condensed. Rolling Stone has reviewed unedited video of the exchange, in which Kennedy appears combative and unrepentant. Lynch presented Kennedy with his previous remarks and asked, Do you still believe in what you said? He also pressed Kennedy about trafficking in an antisemitic trope.

At first Kennedy dodged and weaved: The irony is that at the same time Im being called antisemitic which, of course, is a joke Im also being called a Zionist. So somebody has got to make up their mind.

Kennedy then insisted: All I was doing was quoting an NIH [National Institutes of Health] funded paper that anybody can look up that was funded by the United States government that showed that certain races were more susceptible. Kennedy elaborated: The races that it was least compatible with were people from Finland. The second most was Ashkenazi Jews. The third most was Chinese nationals. It was most compatible with Blacks, with people from Africa, and with Caucasians. Kennedy added as a caveat: There are ethnically targeted bio-weapons. I never said that Covid was one of those.

The science is never really the point with Kennedy, who routinely misconstrues research studies to support dark, preconceived notions. But the paper he cites makes no reference to the genetic targeting of Covid-19. It observes that potentially deleterious variants of a gene called ACE2 appear to make certain populations more susceptible to the virus.

Such variants, it is true, are found disproportionately in Africans and African Americans as well as in Non-Finnish European populations. However the study does not refer to Chinese nationals at all. It notes that a wide grouping of Latinos, East Asians, and South Asians are less likely to carry the susceptible genetic variants. (Contra Kennedy, the Finns are also in this grouping.) Finally, it observes that these genetic vulnerabilities are not seen in either Ashkenazi Jews nor in the Amish.

Of course a conspiracy theory centered on resistance to the coronavirus by Ecuadorians and the Pennsylvania Dutch is not nearly so explosive as one featuring Chinese and Jews. Specifically, it would not resonate with widely circulated, bigoted tropes that blame Beijing for unleashing Covid-19 on the world, nor those that falsely cast Jews as leading a globalist cabal served by this great reset.

The Kennedy campaign did not respond to specific questions from Rolling Stone about why Kennedy is so stubborn in misrepresenting covid science. Instead, a campaign spokesperson pointed to a second recent clip with the candidate on The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur from June 17.

In that clip Kennedy portrays himself as the victim of mainstream media spin designed to make me seem crazy. He complained that his original 2023 comments were meant to be off the record, and that he was never suggesting that people deliberately developed or cultivated covid as a bio-weapon against certain races.

And yet Kennedy continued to mangle the NIH research, again falsely asserting the primacy of Finnish immunity to the disease. Kennedy concluded with the last resort of the conspiracy theorist, which is that he was only raising questions. I wasnt vouching for the paper, he said. I was just saying: Its interesting that this is out there.

See the article here:

RFK Jr. Flip-Flops on Whether Covid Was 'Ethnically Targeted' - Rolling Stone

Remember when the federal government accused social media companies of spreading misinformation about COVID-19? Well, according to a recent bombshell report from Reuters, top U.S. policy makers should have pointed their fingers at a giant mirror.

That's because the U.S. military, under both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, deliberately spread misinformation on social media about the COVID-19 vaccines, in hopes of encouraging Filipinos to distrust the Chinese government. The disinformation campaignwhich involved hundreds of fake accounts on Xpromoted the idea that Sinovac, the COVID-19 vaccine created in China, was dangerous.

"COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don't trust China!" read one typical tweet.

Other tweets aimed at Asian Muslims incorrectly asserted that the vaccines contained pork and were contrary to religious dictates. One implied the Chinese vaccine contained rat poison. "What if their vaccines are dangerous?" wondered one Twitter user.

As Reason's Matthew Petti points out, poorly conceived government-backed disinformation campaigns supposedly aimed at foreign adversaries are nothing new. But this one is especially hypocritical since opposition to vaccine misinformation has become one of the Biden administration's central philosophies.

Want more on free speech, social media, and why everyone in the media is wrong everywhere all the time? Sign up for Free Media from Reason and Robby Soave.

In January 2021, Biden was sworn in as president with a mandate to return the country to normalcy amid the death and destruction of the COVID-19 pandemic. By this time, the vaccines had become available to at-risk populations, and over the ensuing weeks and months, millions of Americans chose to become vaccinated.

But the Biden administration became unsatisfied with the pace of vaccination; government health advisers were particularly distraught about vaccine-hesitant Americans receiving bad information about COVID-19 from social media. In July 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released an advisory describing misinformation as an urgent crisis.

"In recent years, the rapidly changing information environment has made it easier for misinformation to spread at unprecedented speed and scale, especially on social media and online retail sites, as well as via search engines," wrote Murthy. "Misinformation tends to spread quickly on these platforms for several reasons."

Indeed, the traditional media soon became obsessed with the idea that people were insufficiently enthusiastic about vaccination and that social media was to blame. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit, branded 12 vaccine-skeptical online accounts as the "Disinformation Dozen." In its write-up about the Disinformation Dozen, The New York Times lamented that one of the offenders, a Florida doctor named Joseph Mercola, had made "easily disprovable" claims on Facebook.

Mercola "declared coronavirus vaccines were 'a medical fraud' and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease," complained the Times.

One sees the problem with stigmatizing any and all vaccine-related opinions that depart from the current orthodoxy. While some of these claims seemed "easily disprovable" in summer 2021, the scientific consensus subsequently conceded that vaccines do not fully prevent infection, provide immunity, or stop transmission. The vaccines lower the risk of serious illness and death, particularly for vulnerable people: the elderly, the obese, and the chronically sick. The miraculous powers initially attributed to them by government health adviserscoronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci described vaccinated Americans as "dead ends" for COVID-19have not withstood the test of time, unfortunately.

This is not to say that every crazy claim ever made about COVID-19 vaccines has been validated; some social media users have wrongly stated, for instance, that the vaccines caused a spike in deaths from heart conditions, even though researchers have found no evidence of this. Yet it remains the case that so many formerly controversial opinions relating to COVID-19 are no longer considered controversial at all: from the efficacy of cloth masks and social distancing (which Fauci now admits he essentially made up) to the possible laboratory origins of the disease.

Public commentators who inveigh against misinformation ought to have been more circumspect. Nevertheless, Biden himself joined the chorus of government officials railing against misinformation on social media. He accused Facebook and other platforms of "killing people" because they failed to police misinformation. This wasn't mere criticism; the White House communications director said the government was reviewing options to force the social media companies to take stronger actionspossibly by revoking their protection from some liability under Section 230, the federal law that makes the internet possible. Emails between social media moderators and federal bureaucrats suggest that the companies took these threats seriously: My March 2023 cover story for Reason argued that Facebook essentially outsourced coronavirus-related moderation to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's true that the federal government shut down the military disinformation campaign to discredit Sinovac within the first several months of Biden's presidency. But given how stridently the Biden administration sought to shift the onus of responsibility for vaccine hesitancy to social media companies, it's really galling that its own hands were not exactly squeaky clean.

When he learned of the U.S. military's actions, Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine, told Reuters: "I'm extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the U.S. government would do that."

Dismaying, indeed.

I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss MSNBC's complaints about "cheap fake" videos, NBC's incoherence on the subject of bump stocks, and whether Rep. Cori Bush (DMo.) has magic powers.

"A Son for a Son," the first episode of House of the Dragon's second season, was quite good, though I had a few issues with it. (Spoilers to follow.)

As always, it's a delight to be back in Westeros. The world building is top notch and immersive; George R. R. Martin's vision truly comes to life. I appreciated small details, like the King's Landing soldiers bracing for conflict when they spot a dragon in the sky, only to breathe a sigh of relief when it's revealed the rider is on their side.

The final sequence of the episode, the infamous murder of a young child, was certainly gripping and terrible, but it lacked a certain amount of plausibility. Where on earth were the guards? It was very, very hard to believe that two not-especially-competent assassins could break into the Red Keep, bumble around, and commit the murdereven if the captain of the Kingsguard, Ser Criston Cole, was, er, busy at the time.

Read more:

U.S. Military Spread COVID-19 Misinformation - Reason

As Covid continues to settle into everyday life, health experts are noticing it has certain patterns, and a few other changes from the first few years the virus struck.

Summer Covid is a thing. This is not what health officials expected from the virus. Sure, there's the common winter cold and flu season. Many expected Covid to align with that timing and join the other respiratory viruses, but it seems the pattern Covid has settled into is to spike during winter, and then again in summer, just as you get ready to go on vacation.

"For the first two years, I said, 'Oh ya know, this is just an anomaly.' But now as we head in to year three of this, it's clear that we are having summer Covid," Dr. Helen Chu with the University of Washington Medicine told Seattle Now.

RELATED: Covid isolation reduced to 24 hours in Washington state

"We are heading into a summer surge," she added. "If you remember from the last couple of years, there is a large winter surge, and then there is often a smaller, but still significant, surge in mid- to late-summer. So, we're heading into that now."

Officials began noticing Covid cases were on the rise in early June. Viral levels in wastewater, both nationally and in Washington state, were getting higher and higher. The CDC currently states the national level of Covid is "low," based on viral testing of wastewater. Chu reported that the viral levels are highest in the Northeast, Florida, and California, "but we're not far behind." As of early June, Washington state was trending slightly higher than the national average.

Chu said visits to emergency rooms for Covid have also been increasing in Washington. Covid hospitalizations are not up, but she noted those numbers usually lag behind the the other surges.

"As we head into summer travel season, you don't want to ruin your vacation. So, remember doing the things we did in the past wearing a mask in crowded spaces, testing yourself if you're symptomatic if you are gathering with loved ones, especially those who are more vulnerable," she said.

Looking at Washington's Covid dashboard, the surge in Covid cases heading into summer 2024 is not nearly as severe as the spikes during the pandemic era. Still, Chus said it's worth noting for those who are more vulnerable immunocompromised people and older adults. Chu stressed that such groups should keep up-to-date on their Covid booster shots. While the Covid booster vaccine expected in the fall is designed for the current strain causing the spike in cases (JN1), vulnerable groups should be boosted as soon as possible.

RELATED: Why Anthony Fauci approaches every trip to the White House as if it's his last

Summer surges are just one aspect of Covid that health experts are beginning to notice, though Chu expects that it will continue to evolve.

There are some changes to the illness in 2024 that stray from previous seasons.

"One thing that is a little bit different than we've seen over the last few years, is that the number of people reporting loss of sense of taste or smell is decreasing," Chu said. "Also, the proportions of people developing long Covid after their infections is going down."

"It tells us that we are not at a steady state with this virus yet," she added. "Right now, we're still learning how to interact with it, how our immune systems are responding to it, and whether or not the population as a whole just doesn't have long-lasting immunity that gets us through until the next season. So, we're seeing these little surges that are happening every summer. It may take much longer to get to a state where we see Covid turn into a normal seasonal respiratory virus like flu or RSV."

KUOW's Dyer Oxley contributed to this article.

Originally posted here:

Covid is back just in time for your summer vacation - KUOW News and Information

There is a new set of COVID-19 strains circulating in the U.S. in time for a possible summer surge.

The FLiRT strains are subvariants of Omicron, and they now account for more than 50% of COVID cases in the U.S. up from less than 5% in March.

Some experts have suggested that the new variants could cause a summer surge in COVID cases. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reports that COVID viral activity in wastewater is low.

Dr. Catherine Troisi, a professor at the School of Public Health at UT Health Houston, said these new subvariants are spreading better than previous iterations of the virus.

The COVID virus changes very quickly, she said. And these variants are just the latest ones. They appear to be more infectious. Either theyre spreading better or they are evading our immune system better. But luckily, theres no indication that they cause more serious disease.

Troisi said the folks most at risk for serious illness from this variant are the same groups who have always faced a higher risk from COVID the elderly and people with underlying conditions.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

She said its not unreasonable to think there could be a surge of cases this summer.

We can look historically and say that in the last four years, weve seen surges in the summer for various reasons. So, you know, its not unlikely well see that this year, she said. Although a lot of people, probably about 97% of the country, has some sort of immunity. So even if you get sick, were hoping not to see those hospitalizations and deaths [go up].

Other than that, its hard to tell because we dont have testing results like we did earlier in the pandemic. So we can look at hospitalizations theyre up a little bit in the country. We can look at deaths theyre not up. And the same is true in Texas as well.

Troisi said people can mask to protect others if they have symptoms or are worried about exposure in a public place. There is also an updated booster shot that hit the market in fall 2023 that can help increase protection.

Back in the fall of 2023, there was a recommendation that everybody get an updated booster. Uptake was not very good, she said. And then in February, another recommendation was that if you were over the age of 65 or had underlying conditions because, again, youre at higher risk of more severe outcomes if you get infected that you get a second booster. Uptake was even worse on that second booster.

Now for the fall theres going to be your recommendation that everybody get a booster. And we probably wont even call it a booster. Well just call it the 2024-2025 vaccine. And the FDA and CDC have made the recommendation that the vaccine be tweaked to include this new variant or one of the children of that variant, to increase immunity.

See more here:

There's a new subvariant of COVID circulating. Here's what you need to know. - Texas Standard

Engin_Akyurt / pixabay.com

COLLEGE PARK, Md. When it comes to protecting others from respiratory viruses, the type of mask you wear matters. A new study has found that N95 respirators are significantly more effective than cloth masks, surgical masks, and KN95 respirators at reducing the amount of viral particles exhaled by people infected with COVID-19.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland, is the first controlled human study to directly compare the efficacy of different mask types as source control blocking respiratory viruses exhaled by infected individuals. Using a special bioaerosol collector, the researchers measured the amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in breath samples from 44 COVID-positive volunteers, with and without masks.

The results published in The Lancet were striking. On average, wearing an N95 respirator reduced the viral particles exhaled into the air by a whopping 98% compared to no mask. In comparison, cloth masks blocked 87% of the virus, loose-fitting surgical masks blocked 74%, and KN95s blocked only 71% on average.

Despite the variability in individual results, the overall trend was clear N95s outperformed all other mask types by a significant margin when it came to containing exhaled virus. The researchers calculated that an N95 is capable of reducing transmission risk by a factor of 20, compared to not wearing a mask at all.

Our findings support strong recommendations that face masks should be worn in areas with high risk of transmission, says study lead Dr. Donald Milton in a media release. N95 respirators could become the standard of care for source control in healthcare settings. They should be worn by healthcare workers to protect their vulnerable patients, as well as themselves.

To assess the efficacy of masks as source control, volunteers provided two 30-minute breath samples back-to-back first while wearing a mask, then without a mask. This allowed each person to serve as their own control for comparison.

Importantly, the researchers intentionally did not provide any training on proper mask usage to the volunteers. They wanted to mimic real-world conditions as closely as possible. The only instructions given were to pinch the nose wire if present and how to position the straps on the N95s.

Aerosol samples were collected in two size ranges: fine particles under five microns in diameter that can remain airborne for extended periods and larger coarse particles over five microns that settle more quickly. The amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in each sample was then precisely measured using PCR testing.

After controlling for factors like age, sex, coughing frequency, and which COVID variant the person was infected with, N95 respirators remained the clear winner. On average, N95s reduced fine aerosol viral particles by 99% and coarse aerosol viral particles by 94%.

Cloth masks came in second place, reducing fine and coarse particles by 92% and 74% respectively. Surgical masks ranked third with 81% reduction in fine and 54% reduction in coarse viral aerosols. KN95s surprisingly performed the worst, with 79% fine and 48% coarse aerosol reduction.

The researchers quantified the relative source control performance of the different masks by comparing outward leak fractions. Leak fraction represents the proportion of virus that escapes through and around a mask during exhalation. A lower leak fraction equates to better source control.

N95s showed leak fractions 94% lower than KN95s on average. Compared to surgical masks, N95s reduced leak fractions by 93%. Even against well-fitting cloth masks, N95s still demonstrated an 87% reduction in leak fraction, a statistically significant improvement.

Duckbill N95 masks should be the standard of care in high-risk situations, such as nursing homes and health care settings, says first author Dr. Jianyu Lai. Now, when the next outbreak of a severe respiratory virus occurs, we know exactly how to help control the spread, with this simple and inexpensive solution.

The study does have some limitations to keep in mind when interpreting the results. The study population consisted mostly of young adults with mild symptoms, so the findings may not directly translate to older or sicker individuals.

Most of the surgical masks and KN95s tested were limited to a single brand, so performance may vary for other products. The cloth masks were an assortment of types and fits brought in by participants. Neck gaiters, bandanas, and double masking were not evaluated.

Also, the unmasked viral levels were often higher for the KN95 and N95 groups compared to cloth and surgical masks. This is because more of those respirator samples were collected during the Delta and Omicron waves, when viral shedding tended to be higher, while more of the cloth and surgical mask data came from earlier variants. The researchers controlled for this potential confounding factor in their analysis.

This study provides real-world evidence that N95 respirators are the gold standard when it comes to reducing the spread of viral respiratory particles, even without special fit testing or training. Wearing an N95 properly can make a dramatic difference in blocking the virus from being exhaled into shared air spaces.

As the COVID pandemic persists and new viral threats inevitably emerge, these findings have important implications for infection control policies and public health guidance. While any mask is better than no mask, N95s should be the first choice in high-risk settings like hospitals, nursing homes, and crowded indoor environments when virus transmission is prevalent.

Improved respiratory protection policies are needed that are graded appropriately to the level of risk. These new insights on source control efficacy will help inform those policies and highlight the critical role of masks and respirators as part of a multi-layered strategy to reduce airborne transmission of dangerous pathogens now and in the future.

More:

N95 masks stop 98% of viral particles exhaled, while KN95s are worse than cloth - Study Finds

Researchers infected 36 people with the virus that causes COVID-19 to understand why some people seem to evade the virus. The answer was in their immune system.

New research has looked at why some people do not get sick from COVID-19 by deliberately infecting a small number of healthy individuals under highly controlled settings.

Researchers administered the virus to 36 healthy adult volunteers without a previous history of COVID-19 through the nose.

They looked at the study participants cells from their noses and blood and published their findings in the journal Nature.

Then, they used a technology called single-cell sequencing to look at the genetic information (DNA and RNA) of individual cells.

This was an incredibly unique opportunity to see what immune responses look like when encountering a new pathogen in adults with no prior history of COVID-19, in a setting where factors such as time of infection and comorbidities could be controlled, Dr Rik Lindeboom, co-first author of the study from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, said in a statement.

Individuals who quickly eliminated the virus did not display a typical widespread immune response. Instead, they showed subtle immune responses.

High levels of activity of a gene called HLA-DQA2 before exposure could have helped these participants to prevent a prolonged infection, the researchers said.

Conversely, six individuals who developed a prolonged infection had a rapid immune response in their blood but a slower one in their nose, which allowed the virus to establish itself there.

These findings shed new light on the crucial early events that either allow the virus to take hold or rapidly clear it before symptoms develop, said Dr Marko Nikoli, another of the studys authors from University College London.

Researchers also found common patterns in activated T cell receptors (TCRs), the protein at the surface of T cells which are designed to recognise specific antigens.

When a TCR binds to a pathogen presented by an infected or abnormal cell, it triggers the T cell to become activated.

Then, T cells can directly kill infected cells, activating other immune cells and helping with long-term immunity by remembering the pathogen.

This study provided insights into how immune cells communicate and could help in developing targeted T-cell therapies for not only COVID-19 but other diseases as well.

We now have a much greater understanding of the full range of immune responses, which could provide a basis for developing potential treatments and vaccines that mimic these natural protective responses, Nikoli said.

This study is part of the Human Cell Atlas, an international collaborative group launched in 2016 aiming to map all human cells.

See the rest here:

Researchers infected 36 people with COVID to understand why some are less likely to get the virus - Euronews

usatoday.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.

Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on usatoday.com

Follow this link:

Anthony Fauci on the fight to combat COVID and contradicting Trump - USA TODAY

As the United States heads into the summer season, early indicators show the country is likely to experience an increase in COVID-19 infections.

For the week ending June 8, the latest date for which data is available, COVID test positivity was 5.4% across the U.S., an increase of 0.8% from the previous week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In the Western region -- which is comprised of Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada -- COVID test positivity was 12.8%, higher than any other region of the U.S. The New England region -- made up of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont -- had the next highest test positivity rate at 5.4%, matching the national rate.

Wastewater data from the CDC shows that although viral activity levels are still low nationally, levels have more than doubled in the western U.S. over the last month.

Additionally, COVID emergency department visits for the week ending June 8 rose 12.6% from the week prior, according to CDC data.

Traditionally, the U.S. has seen increases in COVID every summer, typically after the Fourth of July, but public health experts said Americans will likely see a "drift upwards" rather than a surge. They added that the average person will be able to safely navigate a rise in cases but that high-risk individuals who could develop serious illness need to be remain on alert and be careful.

"To put it proportionally to like where we were in many winters, we are at a very, very low rate of COVID, compared to some of our peaks," Dr. Cameron Wolfe, a professor of medicine in the infectious diseases division at Duke University, told ABC News. "Like compared to early 2022, for example, when omicron first emerged, this is night and day different. But there's just this little drift upwards, perhaps in the last few weeks."

Increases have been seen in several states, most notably on the West Coast. In Los Angeles, the county's Department of Public Health reported an average of 121 cases on June 13, up from a daily average of 106 instances one week prior.

However, experts said a combination of us learning how to better manage the virus and having high levels of immunity means COVID will not be a major threat to the average person.

"Our bodies have learned how to manage the virus over the last four years, meaning that many people have had successive waves of infection, many people have had initial vaccinations," Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told ABC News. "So that combined immunity gives a big force field that can help protect us during the summer. Although most people will be fine, there are still some people that are going to get very sick."

As of Tuesday, hospitalizations and deaths in the U.S. remain stable. For the week ending May 18, the last week of complete data, there were 311 deaths due to COVID, which is the lowest death figure recorded in the U.S. since the beginning of the pandemic.

Chin-Hong said most hospitalizations and deaths are occurring among high-risk groups, including elderly individuals aged 75 and older and people who are immunocompromised, such as those who have undergone organ transplants or are on medications that suppress the immune system.

He recommends the average person track COVID wastewater data from the CDC to see if it's trending upwards in their area and to keep masks and COVID rapid tests handy in case they need them, but he added that an increase in COVID should not be cause for fear.

"I think there's a fine balance between ignoring everything and being scared by everything," Chin-Hong said. "It's like when you're crossing the street. You never just run across a busy road; you always look both ways, but it doesn't mean you don't go to the next destination. So, I think in the new phase of COVID, that's the way we should think about it."

Similarly, Wolfe said people should assess their individual risk and take more precautions if they will be around high-risk individuals such as senior citizens or sick patients. He also recommended getting the newest updated COVID vaccine that will likely be rolled out in late September.

"Very much in the same way that flu vaccines are tailored each year to adapt to the strains that we see, the same is occurring with COVID," Wolfe said. "And I think for someone who might be themselves or someone in their family or close contact known to be high risk I'm going to be still actively encouraging those people to get vaccinated."

See original here:

There may be an increase in COVID cases this summer. Experts say this is why many shouldn't be concerned - ABC News

{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}

Reel back to June 2021. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., did not yet wield the committee gavel. But he had questions about COVID-19, which gripped the planet.

"For most of the pandemic, anyone who raised questions about the origin of the virus was dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist," opined Green on the House floor.

Many were even reluctant to dip into the idea that COVID-19 could have come from a lab in China in 2021.

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: WHO NEEDS WHO?

Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., is a doctor and the top Democrat on the House panel investigating the start of the pandemic. Some Republicans touted the lab leak theory. Yet Ruiz was careful to note that the concept was far from proven. The Department of Energy and FBI suggested a lab leak was the culprit. But most U.S. intelligence agencies suspected the virus emanated from nature.

"They do not strongly with high confidence say that this was a lab leak," said Ruiz at a July 2023 hearing. "But we heard that they do from the other side. Thats a lie."

Like Green, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., argued in 2023 that Democrats "accused everyone who believes that there was a lab leak to be a conspiracy theorist."

But the theory of a lab leak potentially sparking the pandemic no longer flits around the fringes.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is sworn in prior to testifying before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 3, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The House COVID committee unearthed a message last year from Dr. David Morens an associate of Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci was the public face of the pandemic response. He just retired as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Morens wrote that "Tony doesnt want his fingerprints on origin stories."

In an appearance on Fox in January 2023, Fauci declared that "the evidence points very strongly, very strongly to this being a natural jump from an animal species to a human."

But Fauci may have tempered those views.

"Ive also been very, very clear and said multiple times that I dont think the concept of there being a (lab) leak is inherently a conspiracy theory," said Fauci to the House coronavirus committee this month. "What is a conspiracy is the kind of distortions that it was a lab leak and I was parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak."

BIDEN'S ATTORNEY GENERAL IS FIGHTING BACK AS THE GOP-LED HOUSE CONTEMPLATES CONTEMPT

In 2020, Fauci cited an article from the British scientific magazine Nature when talking about what caused the pandemic. The House COVID committee is scrutinizing communications between Fauci and the essays authors just before the item went to print. Some Republicans accuse Fauci of trying to use the article to shield criticism about a possible lab leak.

The Senate probed the origins of the pandemic at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing this week.

"Today we are here to examine one of the most critical and debated questions of our time," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has long been suspect of what the government said about what fueled the pandemic.

"Just like the Hunter Biden laptop story, the experts said this was disinformation," snapped Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., about the lab leak concept.

Tulane Medical School Dean Dr. Robert Garry co-authored the 2020 article in Nature. Garry argued it wasnt plausible for a lab leak to trigger the pandemic.

Dr. David Morens testified in Congress about released emails between Morens and an NGO president that received federal funding for COVID-19 research in Wuhan, China. (House Oversight Committee)

"So youre saying that (idea) came to you overnight?" questioned Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

"There was new data," replied Garry.

"Like a revelation from God? Overnight? Ive figured it out, and now I can definitely rule it out. Its amazing! Is that what happened?" countered Hawley.

"Its just the scientific method," responded Garry.

Garry holds firm that he believes the pandemic started in nature. But he concedes some of the science evolved.

Thats why Republican senators chided Garry about the article, leaning on a zoonotic origin of the pandemic.

STATUESQUE REV GRAHAM TRIBUTE COMES TO THE CAPITOL, BUT SHIES AWAY FROM THE LIMELIGHT

"That is scientific misconduct and fraud," charged Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. "The reason the American public legitimately don't trust scientists and health agencies because people like you, you bear that responsibility for violating the public's trust from your scientific misconduct. And fraud."

"It was not fraud," countered Garry. "We didn't put anything in that paper that we didn't believe was true. The conclusions of that paper have held up very well. In fact, there's been an abundance of scientific evidence that has come forward since then to support all the conclusions, everything we wrote in that paper. So, there's no fraud."

But even other scientists upbraided Garry.

"This is the most egregious form of scientific misconduct. Publishing a paper where you know the conclusions are untrue," alleged Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University.

Still, questions linger about what went down in Wuhan, China. Thats the site of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Its close to the Wuhan wet market. Thats the locale some identify as the geographic center of the pandemic.

"It's one jump from one animal to one human. The most likely place that happens is in a laboratory," said Steven Quay of Atossa Therapeutics and a former Stanford University faculty member. "The Wuhan Institute (of) Virology. Thats where Id look."

A worker takes a swab sample for a COVID-19 test at a mobile test site on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, in Beijing. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

However, China is seemingly impenetrable when it comes to providing western investigators data about the pandemic.

"The Chinese government may never fully disclose all the information they have about the initial COVID-19 outbreak," said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Gary Peters, D-Mich., who called the hearing.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., is advocating a 9/11-style commission to investigate the origins of COVID. Marshall also raised the possibility of classifying COVID-19 as a bioweapon. The Kansas Republican framed this in the context of national security.

"What did the U.S. do to contribute to (this) and how do we keep this from happening again?" asked Marshall.

Some senators acknowledge that the start of COVID many remain a stumper.

"We might be 98% or something. But we'll always be a little uncertain," said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And like much of the pandemic, that uncertainly seems to be the only thing wedoknow for sure.

Read the original here:

Senate stumped over COVID origins: What we know and dont know - Fox News