Category: Corona Virus

San Diegos Cue Health, which made high-tech COVID-19 test kits, filed for bankruptcy following news that it would shut down and lay off all employees.

It officially marks the winding down of one of San Diegos most high-profile COVID-19 test providers during the pandemic. The local firm was once worth $2.3 billion when it went public in 2021. But declining demand for COVID-19 tests battered Cue and similar diagnostic businesses.

The local biotech company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Delaware where it is incorporated last week as it seeks to liquidate its remaining assets. At the time of its closure last month, Cue employed approximately 250 workers most in San Diego and operated eight facilities across the county.

The voluntary bankruptcy filing comes after months of Cue trying to cut costs through layoffs. It also explored selling the business. But a financial remedy didnt come through in time. Cue laid off all of its employees, including its leadership, and abruptly shuttered operations on May 24.

Despite its best efforts and after a comprehensive review, Cues Board of Directors in consultation with the Companys advisors, has concluded that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stakeholders to file for Chapter 7 relief, the company stated in a May 28 press release.

Cue has $100 million to $500 million worth of assets, according to the bankruptcy court filing. The company also reported having $50 million to $100 million in debt.

The court filing also says Cue has about 200 to 999 creditors, which are people and entities who could be paid as a result of the liquidation. On Friday, the judge approved the payment of former employees, who are owed compensation and benefits following the companys closure.

In the filing, Cue noted that it has facilities in San Diego, Vista and Boca Raton, Fla.

Cue Health, founded in San Diego in 2010, grew quickly during the coronavirus pandemic through multi-million dollar government and private contracts. The company supplied COVID-19 test kits to the U.S. Department of Defense and big-name organizations like Google and the NBA.

The biotech grew its headcount from 99 employees in January 2020 to 1,515 full-time employees at the end of 2022.

But, when those contracts ended, government funding pulled back and the general publics demand for COVID-19 testing dropped off, Cue struggled to sustain its business model.

The companys sleek COVID-19 test that sent results directly to a patients smartphone in 15 minutes, was its only fully FDA-approved product. The company disclosed in financial filings that its future success and survival hinged on the COVID-19 test and efforts to get other products approved.

Those approvals for other test products for flu, RSV and other diseases didnt pan out. Then, in mid-May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told consumers to throw away Cues COVID-19 tests because the company changed its test without prior approval.

The letter from the FDA was the final nail in the coffin for Cue, which had already slashed its workforce and shaken up its C-suite in its futile attempts to appease investors and save the company.

Cue Health is being represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in the bankruptcy proceedings and FTI Consulting, Inc. is acting as financial adviser. The company said in the filing it agreed to pay approximately $1.2 million in legal fees related to the bankruptcy proceedings and business closure.

See original here:

San Diego COVID-19 test maker Cue Health files for bankruptcy following company closure - The San Diego Union-Tribune

In his first public testimony since stepping down from government office at the end of 2022, Dr. Anthony Fauci on Monday fended off a variety of attacks from Republican politicians at a fiery hearing called to discuss lessons learned during the pandemic.

Fauci, appearing voluntarily before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, denied a wide range of claims that have been made against him in recent years.

Various Republican subcommittee members asked Fauci about funding for virology research in China that came from the National Institutes of Health and that they said he had approved. Some conspiracy theories suggest that such research led to the coronavirus being leaked from a lab. Fauci also answered questions about whether his staff endeavored to conceal the nature of that research from the public.

In his opening statement, Fauci said it's possible the virus had leaked from a lab he said that, given that the pandemic's origins remain unknown, he personally keeps an open mind. But he denied concealing any relevant information about a potential leak.

I dont think the concept of there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory, Fauci said. What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that particular subject, like 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. Thats the conspiracy.

The subcommittee did not present any evidence linking Fauci to the coronavirus' origins.

Fauci has emerged as one of the people most vilified by supporters of former President Donald Trump, with many blaming him for the pandemic based on a wide array of false or misleading claims. Calls to prosecute Fauci for unspecified crimes have become common on the right.

In his testimony Monday, Fauci explained that he participated in a call in early 2020 with about a dozen scientists in which they discussed the virus' emergence and the possibility that it may have originated in a lab. Fauci said that, after further investigation, the members of that group concluded that the virus most likely spilled over from animals to humans.

The accusation being circulated that I influenced the scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false and simply preposterous, he said.

Fauci testified about the same subjects before the same subcommittee in a closed-door hearing in January.

Before retiring, Fauci also testified before Congress many times about his leadership during the pandemic. He directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and was part of then-President Donald Trumps coronavirus task force, as well as President Joe Bidens Covid response team.

During the hearing Monday, Democrats championed Fauci as a stalwart public servant and accused Republicans of unnecessarily vilifying him.

Some of our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives seem to want to drag your name through the mud. Theyre treating you, Dr. Fauci, like a convicted felon, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland.

But in a combative moment that prompted consternation from several of her House colleagues, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, said Fauci belonged in prison and did not deserve to have a medical license. She added that Fauci's medical guidance led children to be "muzzled" with masks in schools, and in a strange tangent accused him of signing off on experiments involving the torture of beagles.

As she left the hearing, Greene doubled down in comments to NBC News.

"Fauci belongs in prison. He should be tried for mass murder, and he should be tried for crimes against humanity. Thats how I feel after that hearing," she said.

Multiple Democrats apologized to Fauci for the insult.

This might be the most insane hearing Ive actually attended," said Rep. Robert Garcia, of California. "Ive only been on Congress for a year and a half, but I am so sorry that you are subjected to those level of attacks and insanity."

The Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has been investigating the coronavirus' origins for months, with a primary focus on the possibility of a lab leak, as well as on mask and vaccine mandates.

Much of Monday's hearing focused on EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group that received U.S. government funding for pandemic prevention work. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services suspended funding to the organization after concluding that it had failed to adequately monitor research it was involved in at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and did not turn over requested materials or submit progress reports on time.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee, said Monday that Faucis leadership allowed the president of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, to use millions in taxpayer dollars to conduct risky experiments in Wuhan that involved modifying a coronavirus.

Members of the subcommittee have alleged that EcoHealth Alliance facilitated so-called gain-of-function research, which involves enhancing a virus to make it more transmissible. But EcoHealth Alliance has said its work did not meet the definition of such research.

Republicans also questioned Faucis relationship with one of his former aides, David Morens, who used personal email accounts to correspond with Daszak, a friend of his. The subcommittee members said that some of Morens' emails offer evidence that he tried to skirt public records laws.

Fauci said that Morens had violated NIAID policy and that "from what we know now," it appears Morens' communication with Daszak amounted to a conflict of interest.

But Fauci added that he never conducted official business using his own personal email.

He also emphasized that no viruses studied with funding from the National Institutes of Health could have evolved into SARS-CoV-2.

Fauci has been a central focus of extreme conspiracy theories that have circulated online since early in the pandemic, said Cameron Hickey, CEO of the National Conference on Citizenship, a nonprofit focused on strengthening U.S. democracy.

Anti-vaccine activists see Anthony Fauci as a ringleader in the effort to spread lies about the origins of the pandemic, as a profiteer who is making money off the vaccine and as a power-hungry part of the swamp that perpetuated unnecessary public health precautions like masking, isolation and social distancing, Hickey said in an email.

Fauci said Monday that he and his family continue to be harassed.

There have been credible death threats, leading to the arrests of two individuals and credible death threats mean someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And its required my having protective services essentially all the time. It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome because theyve involved my wife and my three daughters, Fauci said, his voice choked.

Aria Bendix is the breaking health reporter for NBC News Digital.

Ali Vitali is a Capitol Hill correspondent for NBC News, based in Washington.

Brandy Zadrozny is a senior reporter for NBC News. She covers misinformation, extremism and the internet.

Read more:

Fauci testifies in combative hearing about Covid's origins - NBC News

Release date: June 10, 2024

Skip to text

Text begins

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the new coronavirus (COVID-19) disease a pandemic. In response, borders were closed, and commercial airline activity came to a near standstill in April, rendering non-essential travel virtually impossible. Travel restrictions, including screenings, quarantines, and travel bans, were implemented in more than 130 countries after the COVID-19 outbreak began.Note In Canada, passengers on scheduled and charter services in April were down 97.0%, compared with the same month in 2019, as commercial passenger service was drastically reduced.Note The restrictions resulted in an unprecedented decline in inbound visitorNote spending in Canada in 2020.

The tourism sector makes a notable contribution to the Canadian economy. Indeed, tourisms quarterly share of Canadas gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 2.0% for the five years before the pandemic (from the first quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2019). However, this share declined to 1.8% in the first quarter of 2020 and then to 0.6% in the second quarter, when the arrival of inbound visitors to Canada virtually ground to a halt.Note As a result, quarterly spending by non-residents as a share of total tourism spending declined from an average of 26.1% in the five years before the pandemic to 2.5% in the second quarter of 2020, leaving spending by Canadians as the sustaining force for the Canadian tourism sector.Note

This study tracks tourism-related spending in Canada by inbound visitors from the United States and overseasNote countries from the first quarter of 2018 to the second quarter of 2023, focusing on the periods before and during the pandemic.Note By examining these changes, we assess the rate of recoveryNote and also identify any shifts in tourism behaviours and spending patterns.

The paper begins with an overview of the data sources, followed by a selective review of studies related to the tourism sector. Next, it delves into the various pandemic-era restrictions that were put in place to combat the spread of COVID-19. An overview of the effects of these restrictions on the travel behaviour of inbound visitors is then presented, covering the aggregated figures (total number of visitors and total amount of spending) and the categorical breakdowns (spending categories and tourism regions). The paper concludes by highlighting significant recovery patterns that have emerged thus far, which could shed light on potential post-pandemic shifts in tourism behaviour.

The data sources used for this study are the Visitor Travel Survey and the Frontier Counts program.

Statistics Canadas Visitor Travel Survey (VTS) provides quarterly statistics on United States and overseas visitors to Canada, their characteristics of travel and their spending levels. From the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020, spending data were derived from a Small Area Estimation model. Collection activity related to the VTS was suspended in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic; estimates from the second quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2023 were produced using a model based on historical 2019 VTS estimates combined with alternate data and adjusted with Frontier Counts results. As of April 2023, VTS collection partially resumed, with the Air Exit Survey (AES) restarting in five major Canadian airports. The non-air component of VTS (visitors arriving by modes of transportation other than air) uses modelled data based on historical VTS estimates while the air component is based on estimates obtained from AES survey results.

The Frontier Counts program at Statistics Canada receives administrative data from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) on all international arrivals into the country, consisting of both non-resident visitors to Canada and Canadian residents returning from abroad.

Studies assessing the impact of the pandemic on tourism in Canada initially focused on international travel, the first area to experience the effects of borders being closed by governments across the world. For example, Omariba and McKeown (2020) examined the steep decline in the number of international arrivals to Canada by commercial air in March and April 2020, using the primary inspection kiosk information gathered by CBSA at major Canadian airports.Note This study found that the number of overseas residents arriving at major Canadian airports dropped by 97.7% in April 2020 compared with April 2019, and the number of US residents entering Canada by air decreased by 99.5% over the same period. Snoddon et al. (2020) traced the impacts of restrictions and border closures on the Canadian airline industry, situating them within an international comparison.Note The authors cited an articleNote showing that the impacts of the first wave of the pandemic were far greater than those of either the events of September 11, 2001, or the 2003 SARS outbreak.

Other subject-matter areas at Statistics Canada focused on the economic impact of COVID-19 on tourism. For instance, the National Tourism Indicators (fourth quarter of 2020) reported that tourism spending in Canada was almost cut in half (-48.1%) in 2020.Note The Labour Force Survey (December 2020) reported employment losses suffered in accommodation and food services, as well as in information, culture, and recreation, over multiple months.Note Liu (2020) explored different scenarios to evaluate the impact of pandemic restrictions on the Canadian economy by focusing on tourism industries.Note He evaluated the possibility of lifting restrictions and the speed of recovery of businesses and the economy. Written in October 2020, Lius study noted that the tourism sector's GDP could decline sharply due to these restrictions. The analysis emphasizes that tourism, which includes industries like transportation, accommodation, food services, and recreation, could face substantial losses, contributing to a broader economic downturn.

Destination Canada (2020) explored the impact of restrictions on the tourism sector by looking at two scenarioscontaining COVID-19 and not containing COVID-19and providing some projections for future years on the spending, employment, government revenue and GDP losses in Canada, by province and by country of origin.Note Additionally, there is a comparison in the study between the COVID-19 pandemic and similar crises in previous years.

By 2021, some of the studies began focusing on spending totals but did not address the spending patterns themselves. Tam et al. (2021) investigated the impact of the pandemic on the tourism sector in the second quarter of 2021. This research mainly focused on revenue loss and high unemployment in the sector and discussed the possibility of recovery for these businesses over the coming years.Note

The present analysis will complement these studies by providing details on how, when, or where visitor spending in Canada occurred before and during the pandemic. Given the severe losses experienced by industries such as transportation, accommodation, food services, and recreation, this analysis offers valuable data that can help these sectors better prepare for future disruptions.

The WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, and on March 13, the Canadian government issued an advisory recommending that Canadians avoid all non-essential travel abroad. On March 16, all international flights were redirected to four airports: Montral/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Calgary International Airport, and Vancouver International Airport. Effective March 18, Canada closed its border to all travellers, except for Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and US citizens. Additionally, a mandatory 14-day quarantine period was required for those returning from abroad. Finally, the CanadaUS border was closed on March 21 to all non-essential travel. As of April 2020, the use of the ArriveCAN mobile application became mandatory for all travellers entering and exiting Canada. Although there was a slight easing of public health measures during the summer of 2020, restrictions on international travel remained in place throughout the rest of the year.

In the first quarter of 2021, the federal government announced additional restrictions for international air travellers arriving in Canada, including a mandatory COVID-19 molecular test upon arrival and a compulsory hotel stopover while awaiting the results as part of the 14-day quarantine period. These restrictions, coupled with the federal governments advisory to refrain from non-essential travel, remained in place throughout the second quarter of 2021.

With the increase in vaccination rates, the federal government started to relax travel restrictions in the summer of 2021. As of July, mandatory testing upon arrival, with a hotel stay as part of a 14-day quarantine, was no longer required for fully vaccinated air travellers. Effective August 9, US citizens who were fully vaccinated were allowed to enter the country for non-essential travel, and on September 7, Canada extended entry to fully vaccinated foreign nationals for discretionary travel.

In late November 2021, the WHO declared Omicron a new variant of concern. In response, on December 15, the Government of Canada readvised Canadians to avoid non-essential travel outside Canada and, on December 21, reinstated the requirement for all travellers arriving in Canada to provide a negative COVID-19 molecular test.

In February 2022, Canada announced a phased easing of the travel requirements issued in late 2021. At the end of February, restrictions regarding where international passenger flights could arrive in Canada were lifted, and these flights were again permitted to land at all international Canadian airports. Throughout the second quarter of 2022, fully vaccinated Canadians were no longer required to provide a negative COVID-19 test when returning to Canada. Finally, as of October 1, 2022, all COVID-19 border requirements, including vaccination, mandatory use of the ArriveCAN application, and testing and quarantine requirements, were removed for all travellers entering Canada by land, air, or water.

Canada welcomed 31.3 million inbound visitors in 201824.4 million US residents and 6.9 million visitors from overseas countries (Chart 1). This was followed by 32.4 million inbound visitors in 201925.0 million US residents and 7.5 million overseas residents.

After the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of borders in March 2020, the number of inbound visitors declined sharply in the second quarter of 2020, reaching only a fraction of the volume observed during the same quarter in 2018. This was true for the numbers of both US and overseas visitors, which fell to 3.5% (224,700 visitors) and 2.8% (50,800 visitors) of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively.

In the second quarter of 2021, the rate of recovery for both US and overseas visitors was just over 5% of the level in 2018. In the third quarter of 2021, the number of inbound visitors surpassed the 1.0 million mark for the first time since the start of the pandemic, when it reached 1.5 million1.2 million US visitors and 308,400 overseas visitors.

The number of inbound visitors continued to recover throughout 2022, after a temporary pause in the first quarter because of the Omicron variant and the subsequent reinstatement of COVID-19 restrictions. This positive recovery trend persisted into the first and second quarters of 2023. The first quarter of 2023 recovered 76.0% (3.7 million) of the level from the same quarter in 2018, and the second quarter reached 90.1% (7.4 million) of the level from the same quarter in 2018. For both quarters, the recovery rates for US and overseas visitors were similar.

In 2018, total tourism expenditures by inbound visitors to Canada were $22.0 billion$10.6 billion by US residents and $11.3 billion by overseas residents. In 2019, total spending increased to $22.8 billion$11.1 billion by US residents and $11.7 billion by overseas residentsincluding a record high of $9.4 billion spent in the third quarter of 2019, with US residents spending $4.5 billion and overseas residents spending $4.9 billion.

The impact of the pandemic on the travel and tourism sector was severe, as evidenced by the staggering decline in tourism expenditures. During the second quarter of 2020, spending declined to 3.0% of the level from the same quarter in 2018: US-resident spending declined to 2.9% and totalled $83.4 million, while overseas-resident spending decreased to 3.1%, reaching $90.8 million (Chart 2).

Throughout 2021, uncertainty about travel restrictions resulted in a slow recovery of inbound tourism spending, which did not approach its pre-pandemic levels. Inbound spending during the third quarter of 2021 totalled $1.5 billion, representing a recovery of 16.3%, compared with the same quarter in 2018 and surpassing the $1.0 billion mark for the first time since the onset of the pandemic.

From the third quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023, the recovery of US-resident spending in Canada generally outpaced that of overseas-resident spending, except in two instances: the first quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, when overseas-resident spending recovery rates were higher.

In the first quarter of 2023, total spending reached $2.7 billion, representing a recovery of 91.3% of the 2018 level. Notably, in the first quarter of 2023, both US residents (90.9%) and overseas residents (91.6%) showed similar recovery rates, compared with the same quarter in 2018.

Total tourism expenditures continued to recover in the second quarter of 2023. By this time, the recovery rate had increased to 119.9%, surpassing the 2018 level and reaching $7.0 billion. In the second quarter of 2023, US-resident spending increased sharply from 2018 (+134.1%) to reach $3.8 billion. Overseas-resident spending in Canada was slightly slower to recover (+106.3%), with total spending reaching $3.1 billion. Both recovery rates indicate that non-resident spending in Canada in the second quarter of 2023 surpassed spending during the same quarter in 2018.

Total tourism expenditures are made up of six spending categories: accommodation, clothes and gifts, food and beverages, recreation and entertainment, transportationNote , and other types of expenditures. In 2018 and 2019, before the pandemic, accommodation and food and beverages were the top two spending categories, making up roughly 60% of total expenditures.

In the second quarter of 2020, spending by US residents dropped in all categories to 5.3% or lower compared with their 2018 levels, with the exception of the other types of expenditures category (i.e., those which do not fall into any of the other five spending categories) which declined to 12.9% of its 2018 level (Chart 3). The largest spending categoryaccommodationdeclined to 2.3% of its level during the same quarter in 2018, reaching $25.2 million. Similarly, the food and beverages category declined to 2.8% ($22.1 million) of its pre-pandemic level in 2018, and the transportation category declined to 5.3% ($24.3 million) of its pre-pandemic level in 2018.

From the second quarter of 2020 to the second quarter of 2021, US-resident spending across the six spending categories remained below 25%. However, a shift began to emerge in the third quarter of 2021, with recovery observed across all categories into the second quarter of 2023. Among these categories, other types of expenditures experienced the most substantial recovery up to the fourth quarter of 2022, reaching 103.1% ($76.0 million) of its pre-pandemic level. However, this was outpaced by the recovery in recreation and entertainment from the first quarter of 2023 to the following quarter, steeply recovering 186.5% ($500.1 million) of its 2018 level. Spending on clothes and gifts, which lagged behind other categories, notably from the first quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023, saw a recovery in the second quarter of 2023, reaching 161.4% ($267.1 million) and securing the second-highest position in terms of recovery of US-resident expenditures.

Prior to the pandemic, spending by US residents on food and beverages was roughly double that of spending on transportation. However, from the second quarter of 2020 until the end of 2020, spending on transportation exceeded spending on food and beverages. From the first quarter of 2021, spending on food and beverages began surpassing transportation expenditures, except in the second quarter of 2021, though not to the extent observed prior to the pandemic. From the fourth quarter of 2022, previously observed food and beverages trends signaled a return to pre-pandemic spending habitsroughly double spending on transportation.

Before the pandemic, US-resident spending on recreation and entertainment was consistently more than double the amount spent on other types of expenditures. However, during the pandemic, this spending experienced a significant decrease, plummeting to half or less than half of the spending on other types of expenditures. The recreation and entertainment spending continued to be less than such spending on other types of expenditures until the third quarter of 2021, when recreation and entertainment spending reached $69.2 million, almost double other types of expenditures ($36.1 million). Spending on recreation and entertainment remained higher than other types of expenditures until the second quarter of 2023.

During the second quarter of 2023, spending by US residents within the six categories surpassed spending recorded in 2018.

In the second quarter of 2020, spending by overseas residents in Canada fell to 6.8% of the 2018 levels or less in all categories (Chart 4). Spending in the largest categoryaccommodationdeclined to 1.8% of the level from the same period of 2018, reaching $18.4 million. The second-largest categoryfood and beveragesdeclined to $52.1 million, 6.8% of its 2018 level.

From the second quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2021, overseas-resident spending across the six expenditure categories remained at close to 20% or less of its 2018 level. However, a shift occurred, with steady recovery seen across most categories from the fourth quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023.

Among the six spending categories, food and beverages consistently exhibited a stronger recovery rate than the other five categories from the fourth quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023, peaking at 134.2% ($474.7 million). However, in the second quarter of 2023, the recovery rate of spending on food and beverages (103.7%) dipped below that of spending on accommodations (108.2%), though spending on food and beverages remained marginally higher than spending on clothes and gifts (102.1%) and significantly outpaced spending on other types of expenditures (38.4%). The greatest recovery of overseas-resident spending in Canada was observed in recreation and entertainment (122.7%), followed by spending on transportation (119.9%).

Before the pandemic, spending on accommodation in Canada by overseas residents was greater than spending on food and beverages. However, in the second quarter of 2020, overseas-resident spending on accommodation ($18.4 million) was surpassed by spending on food and beverages ($52.1 million). This trend persisted until the first quarter of 2022, when accommodation spending reached $232.2 million, prevailing over spending on food and beverages ($208.1 million).

Among the six categories, other types of expenditures experienced the slowest recovery rate in the second quarter of 2023, reaching $40.5 million. This category consistently maintained the second-lowest position in terms of recovery (behind clothes and gifts) from the fourth quarter of 2021 until the first quarter of 2023.

In the second quarter of 2023, overseas-resident spending in the six categories surpassed such spending in 2018, with the exception of other types of expenditures.

From the final quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023, recovery of US-resident spending generally outpaced that of overseas-resident expenditures. This is highlighted in the second quarter of 2023, when US-resident spending in each category recovered at least 119% of its 2018 level, while overseas-resident spending recovery was at least 102% in each category, with the exception of other types of expenditures.

This section examines the pattern of total spending in five selected tourism regions across Canada: the Maritimes;Note Montral; the Greater Toronto Area; the Canadian Rockies; and Vancouver, Coast & Mountains. For the analysis in this section, the top three tourism regions were selected, as well as regions from both the west and east coasts to provide a thorough representation of Canadas diverse tourism destinations. This study highlights significant regional spending patterns. Due to the unavailability of data on spending in selected tourism regions for the second quarter of 2023 at the time of publication, the analysis in this section excludes tourism regions estimates for this quarter.

In 2018 and 2019, before the pandemic, the top three tourism regions among those selected, accounting for over 40% of total tourism expenditures in Canada, were Vancouver, Coast & Mountains; the Greater Toronto Area; and Montral.

In the second quarter of 2020, spending by US residents fell to less than 4% of the corresponding 2018 levels in all five tourism regions (Chart 5). Spending in the top tourism region, Vancouver, Coast & Mountains, decreased to 3.2% of spending relative to the same period in 2018, reaching $17.1 million. Similarly, spending in the Greater Toronto Area and Montral declined to 2.3% ($7.9 million) and 1.6% ($4.2 million), respectively, of pre-pandemic levels in 2018. While spending in the Maritimes dropped to 3.5% ($4.6 million) of the 2018 level, the Canadian Rockies experienced a significant drop to 0.5% ($383,000) of such spending in 2018.

From the second quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2021, spending by US residents in the selected tourism regions remained low, hovering around 20% or less of the levels observed in 2018. However, there was a change in the recovery pattern from the fourth quarter of 2021 onward. During this period, the recovery rate exhibited fluctuations but generally followed an upward trajectory. By the first quarter of 2023, the recovery rate surpassed 2018 spending in the Canadian Rockies (166.4%), the Maritimes (150.4%), and the Greater Toronto Area (107.2%). Montral experienced a recovery rate of 95.0%, while Vancouver, Coast & Mountains recorded the lowest recovery (92.5%), nevertheless approaching 2018 levels.

In the second quarter of 2020, spending by overseas residents declined to less than 5% of the spending recorded in 2018 in the five tourism regions (Chart 6). Spending in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains declined to 4.3% of the level from the same period in 2018, reaching $31.9 million. Likewise, spending in the Greater Toronto Area and Montral declined to 2.4% ($10.7 million) and 2.3% ($7.0 million), respectively, of spending in 2018. While overseas-resident spending in the Maritimes dropped to 3.2% ($3.9 million) of 2018 spending, the Canadian Rockies experienced a substantial decline to 0.2% ($325,000) of pre-pandemic spending.

Overseas visitors spent less in the Maritimes, compared with the Canadian Rockies, throughout most of 2018 and 2019. However, beginning in the second quarter of 2020 and continuing until the first quarter of 2023, spending by overseas visitors in the Maritimes surpassed spending in the Canadian Rockies. In the first quarter of 2023, overseas spending in the Maritimes amounted to $39.0 million, while $38.5 million was spent in the Canadian Rockies.

During the first quarter of 2023, spending by overseas residents in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains experienced a recovery of 98.3% of 2018 spending, amounting to $420.8 million. This resurgence stands as the most substantial recovery observed to date, surpassing all selected tourism regions. Notably, spending in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains by overseas residents outpaced other tourism regions that had previously seen stronger recovery rates in recent quarters.

From January to March 2023, spending by overseas residents in Montral recovered 95.4% ($151.4 million) of 2018 spending, maintaining a consistent trend of recovery exceeding 90% since the third quarter of 2022. Concurrently, the Greater Toronto Area experienced a recovery of 94.5%. By contrast, spending in the Maritimes saw a more modest recovery of 81.9%, while spending in the Canadian Rockies recorded the lowest recovery, at 76.5%, notably its most significant recovery to date.

From the last quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2023, the recovery of US-resident spending in the selected tourism regions was generally higher than that of overseas-resident spending in the same locations. US-resident spending recovered at least 92% overall, while overseas-resident spending recovery during the same period was lower, reaching 76% of the 2018 level.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions implemented to stop its spread, there were significant impacts to the number of inbound visitors to Canada, with the lowest volume of arrivals recorded in the second quarter of 2020 (275,500 visitors; 3.4% of visitors observed during the second quarter of 2018). This decline affected all tourism-related sectors, with a reduction in spending by inbound visitors in all spending categories and tourism regions.

During the first and second quarters of 2023, recovery of the number of visitors remained similar for US and overseas residents. However, while spending by US residents during the first quarter of 2023 displayed a recovery similar to that of overseas residents, it notably outpaced such spending during the second quarter across various spending categories.

Both US and overseas residents increased their spending across all six categories in the second quarter of 2023, surpassing expenditures recorded in the same period in 2018, except for other types of expenditures.

Among the selected tourism regions, total spending in the Canadian Rockies, the Maritimes, and the Greater Toronto Area experienced the largest overall recovery during the first quarter of 2023, surpassing 2018 spending, and was confirmed by corresponding US-resident spending. In contrast, spending by overseas residents was greater in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains; Montral; and the Greater Toronto Area, but remained below 2018 levels.

The increase in tourism spending can be partially attributed to escalating costs for food, services, and transportation.Note Additionally, the extended duration of stays by inbound visitors may have also contributed to the increase in spending. Regarding tourism behaviour, as the world began to reopen for tourism, the term revenge travel emerged in 2021. This term describes travellers seemingly making up for lost opportunities during the pandemic, taking longer trips or spending more per trip, characterizing the resumption of tourism.

See Travel restrictions hampering COVID-19 response - PMC.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: Monthly civil aviation statistics, April 2020.

Return to note referrer

A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside their usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada seasonally adjusted data: Tourism share of gross domestic product at basic prices.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada seasonally adjusted data: Tourism demand in Canada, constant prices (x 1,000,000).

Return to note referrer

Overseas refers to countries other than Canada or the United States.

Return to note referrer

On May 5, 2023, the WHO declared that COVID-19 is an established and ongoing health issue that no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. Also, as of May 2024, there are no travel advisories related to public health in effect in Canada.

Return to note referrer

The recovery rate is determined by dividing the figures for each quarter by their respective values in the reference year of 2018. To illustrate, the recovery of the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2023 is computed as follows: dividing the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2023 by the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2018.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: Study: Leading indicator of international arrivals by air, April 2020.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: COVID-19 impacts on civil aviation: An international comparison.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: Monthly civil aviation statistics, June 2020.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: National tourism indicators, fourth quarter 2020.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: Labour Force Survey, December 2020.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: The Economic Impact of Travel Restrictions on the Canadian Economy due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Return to note referrer

See Destination Canada: COVID-19s Impact on Canadas Tourism Industry - Tourism Economics, April 13, 2020.

Return to note referrer

See Statistics Canada: Impact of COVID-19 on the tourism sector, second quarter of 2021.

Return to note referrer

All spending estimates in this publication are in current dollars and have not been adjusted for inflation.

Return to note referrer

Transportation refers specifically to transportation within Canada.

Return to note referrer

Region of Eastern Canada consisting of three provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Continue reading here:

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on inbound visitors to Canada - Statistique Canada

House Republicans grilled Anthony Fauci, MD, former chief medical adviser to President Biden, during a contentious House hearing on Monday, but Fauci was adamant that accusations about his involvement in a cover-up of COVID-19's origins were false.

With regard to the "false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab -- in fact, the truth is exactly the opposite," Fauci said. In his written testimony, he shared a Feb. 1, 2020 email sent to scientist Jeremy Farrar, MD, former director of the Wellcome Trust, in which Fauci discussed concerns raised by Kristian Andersen over certain mutations of the coronavirus, stating that another scientist "should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to carefully examine the data to determine if his concerns are validated," and, if so, "report it to the appropriate authorities."

"It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this email could conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab leak," Fauci said at the hearing, which marked his first public appearance since his retirement.

Focus on Pandemic Origins

The House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has held a number of hearings focused on the pandemic's origins, many of them around a "lab leak" theory -- the idea that the virus was created in a Chinese lab. The subcommittee has also held hearings related to shutdown measures, vaccine mandates, and side effects of the vaccine.

Subcommittee Chair Rep. Brad Wenstrup, DPM (R-Ohio), began the hearing with a reminder of the House rules of decorum. He thanked Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), for his years of service but did not hold back criticism, implying that Fauci took an authoritarian approach to keeping the public in line with the government's policy recommendations.

"Dr. Fauci, you once said, 'If you disagree with me, you disagree with science,'" Wenstrup said. "Science doesn't belong to any one person," he argued, but must be borne out through hypotheses that are proven or disproven. He claimed Fauci "chose not to pursue an aggressive and transparent scientific investigation of both natural spillover and lab leak," hypotheses of COVID's origin.

Wenstrup claimed the former NIAID director "embraced" a "proximal origin letter" published in March 2020 which stated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was "not a laboratory construct" -- a view Fauci shared publicly from the White House lawn. Wenstrup also raised concerns over behaviors of other NIAID officials.

"We have senior officials from your office, in their own writing, discussing breaking federal law, deleting official records, and sharing private government information with grant recipients," Wenstrup said. In May, the subcommittee made public a trove of private emails that seem to indicate some agency officials deleted messages or used private email to try to circumvent public record laws, according to The Hill.

Fauci Disputes Morens's Testimony

David Morens, MD, a senior advisor to the NIAID director, testified last month that he may have emailed information related to government business to Fauci's personal email, prompting Wenstrup to call for Fauci's own private emails and cell phone records related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, NIAID grantee EcoHealth Alliance, and the origins of the coronavirus. Morens also spoke of "a secret back channel" that he could use to convey information to Fauci.

Fauci disputed Morens's remarks. "Let me state for the record, that to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted official business using my personal email," he said. As for the alleged "secret back channel," Fauci said, "I don't have any idea what he's talking about." Fauci also denied deleting any emails or records related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the origins of the coronavirus. Fauci characterized Morens's behavior as "an aberrancy and an outlier" and not indicative of the larger department.

In Wenstrup's opening remarks, he said that under Fauci's leadership "disgraced characters" like Peter Daszak, PhD, president of EcoHealth Alliance, were allowed to spend millions in taxpayer dollars conducting "risky gain-of-function experiments ... You did sign off on his research grant," the subcommittee chair said.

EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study bat coronaviruses. At an earlier hearing with the same subcommittee, Subcommittee Ranking member Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), argued that Daszak, a virology researcher, had attempted to "deliberately mislead" regulators and that EcoHealth failed to comply with reporting requirements for federal grantees.

Generally, "gain-of-function" refers to research involving a genetic mutation in an organism -- such as a virus -- that confers a new or enhanced ability upon it.

A spokesman for Daszak reached out to MedPage Today to disagree with Wenstrup's assertion that Daszak had been involved with gain-of-function research, and said the NIH had agreed that the work done at the Wuhan lab was not considered gain-of-function.

When asked specifically about signing off on Daszak's grant, Fauci said that NIAID funded thousands of grants and that it would be "physically impossible" to review each grant in detail. Asked by another lawmaker whether it was appropriate for Morens to provide Daszak with advice "regarding how to mislead NIH on EcoHealth's late progress report," Fauci said that was "wrong and inappropriate and violated policy."

Ruiz asked Fauci to explain how he knows there is no connection between research conducted in Wuhan, China, with NIH grants and the "progenitor virus" of SARS-CoV-2. "When you're talking about the evolution of a virus from one to another, the viruses that were studied under the sub-awards to the Wuhan Institute [of Virology] that have been reported in ... reports in the literature and published papers, those viruses were phylogenetically so far removed from SARS-COV-2 that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have evolved, or been made into SARS-CoV-2. It's just a virological fact," Fauci said.

Vehement Defense by Democrats

Democrats vehemently defended Fauci, lauding his service and his work, and apologizing for the personal attacks he endured in and outside of the hearing.

Ruiz argued that Republicans were using the investigation into the origins of COVID-19 to "weaponize" a lab leak theory, "to fuel sentiment against our nation's scientists and public health officials," and "to deflect blame and anguish" from former President Trump, whose "stumbling pandemic response" led to an estimated 400,000 unnecessary deaths, Ruiz said.

The subcommittee has conducted over 100 hours of closed-door interviews with current and former government officials and scientists -- including Fauci -- and pored over more than 425,000 pages of documents provided by the government, organizations, and private citizens, Ruiz said, adding that the subcommittee has found nothing to suggest that Fauci funded research through the EcoHealth Alliance grant that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor did the committee find that Fauci lied about gain-of-function research in Wuhan, he added.

Subcommittee members also found nothing to suggest he "orchestrate[d] a campaign to suppress the lab leak theory ... After 15 months, the Select Subcommittee still does not possess a shred of evidence to substantiate these extreme allegations that Republicans have levied against Dr. Fauci for nearly 4 years," Ruiz said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) similarly argued that all that the subcommittee's investigation revealed is that Fauci is "an honorable public servant ... He is not a comic book super-villain," and he urged the majority to pursue "an authentic investigation" into the pandemic's origins.

Shannon Firth has been reporting on health policy as MedPage Today's Washington correspondent since 2014. She is also a member of the site's Enterprise & Investigative Reporting team. Follow

Follow this link:

Fauci Denies 'False Accusation' of COVID Origins Cover-Up - Medpage Today

In a recent study that has been conducted by a university in Netherlands, numerous death which are unprecedented in the US and the western countries have linked to the COVID-19 vaccines that were developed within a short period of time, often skipping or even rushing through well mandated clinical trial process, as per a report on New York Post.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)

Go here to read the rest:

Are Covid vaccines related to unprecedented deaths in USA? Here's what research paper claims - The Economic Times

ROCK HILL, S.C. Kashyap Patel looked forward to his teams Friday lunches. All the doctors from his oncology practice would gather in the open-air courtyard under the shadow of a tall magnolia tree and catch up. The atmosphere tended to the lighthearted and optimistic. But that week, he was distressed.

It was 2021, a year into the coronavirus pandemic, and as he slid into a chair, Patel shared that hed just seen a patient in his 40s with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and lethal cancer of the bile ducts that typically strikes people in their 70s and 80s. Initially, there was silence, and then one colleague after another said theyd recently treated patients who had similar diagnoses. Within a year of that meeting, the office had recorded seven such cases.

Ive been in practice 23 years and have never seen anything like this, Patel, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates, later recalled. Asutosh Gor, another oncologist, agreed: We were all shaken.

There was other weirdness, too: multiple patients contending with multiple types of cancer arising almost simultaneously, and more than a dozen new cases of other rare cancers.

Increasingly, Patel was left with an unsettling thought: Could the coronavirus be inflaming the embers of cancer?

The uptick in aggressive, late-stage cancers since the dawn of the pandemic is confirmed by some early national data and a number of large cancer institutions. Many experts have mostly dismissed the trend as an expected consequence of disruptions to health care that began in 2020.

The idea that some viruses can cause or accelerate cancer is hardly new. Scientists have recognized this possibility since the 1960s, and today, researchers estimate 15 to 20 percent of all cancers worldwide originate from infectious agents such as HPV, Epstein-Barr and hepatitis B.

It will probably be many years before the world has conclusive answers about whether the coronavirus is complicit in the surge of cancer cases, but Patel and other concerned scientists are calling on the U.S. government to make this question a priority knowing it could affect treatment and management of millions of cancer patients for decades to come.

We are completely under-investigating this virus, said Douglas C. Wallace, a University of Pennsylvania geneticist and evolutionary biologist. The effects of repeatedly getting this throughout our lives is going to be much more significant than people are thinking.

But there is no real world data linking SARS-CoV-2 to cancer, and some scientists remain skeptical.

John T. Schiller, a National Institutes of Health researcher and pioneer in the study of cancer-causing viruses, said pathogens known to cause cancer persist in the body long-term. But the class of respiratory viruses that includes influenza and RSV a family that counts the coronavirus as a member infects a patient and then typically goes away instead of lingering and is not believed to cause cancer.

You can never say never, but that sort of virus does not suggest being implicated in cancers, Schiller said.

David Tuveson, director of the Cancer Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and former president of the American Association for Cancer Research, said theres no evidence the coronavirus directly transforms cells to make them cancerous. But that may not be the full story.

Tuveson said a number of small and early studies many of which have been published within the past nine months suggests that coronavirus infection can induce an inflammatory cascade and other responses that, in theory, could exacerbate the growth of cancer cells.

He has wondered whether it could be more akin to an environmental stressor like tobacco, alcohol, asbestos or microplastics.

Covid wrecks the body, and thats where cancers can start, Tuveson said, explaining how autopsy studies of people who died of covid-19 showed prematurely aged tissue.

Even as the first wave of the coronavirus pummeled the United States, public health officials predicted a surge of cancer cases. A Lancet Oncology paper analyzed a national registry showing increases of Stage 4 disease the most severe across many cancer types in late 2020. Baptist Health Miami Cancer Institute, UC San Diego Health and other large institutions have released data showing continued increases in late-stage cancers.

Xuesong Han, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the Lancet Oncology study, attributed the jump to people delaying or skipping care because of fears related to the virus or because of economic reasons and also to cultural factors, language barriers and discrimination. But Han acknowledged that biological mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19, could be at play.

I dont have the data to support this opinion, Han said. But its an important question to follow up on.

The human body is made up of trillions of cells in a constant state of growth, repair and death. Most of the time, cells with damaged DNA fix themselves, or simply disappear. Sometimes, they start collecting mistakes in their genetic code and rampage out of control into tumors, destroying parts of the body.

Afshin Beheshti is president of the COVID-19 International Research Team, a group of scientists from eclectic backgrounds who got together during the pandemic to consider out-of-the-box of ways to tackle the virus. Beheshtis background is in cancer biology, and he said that as the science on the virus evolved including studies showing widespread inflammation following infection, impact on the vascular system and infection in multiple organs vulnerable to cancer stem cell development he kept thinking the signals seemed to be related to early cancer changes.

It kept nagging on my mind, he said.

About a year ago Beheshti, a visiting researcher at MIT and Harvards Broad Institute, reached out to Patel, who is a past president of the Community Oncology Alliance, a national group of independent cancer specialists, and they hosted a symposium with other scientists that concluded compelling evidence exists suggesting links between the coronavirus and cancer.

Hopefully, were wrong, Beheshti said. But everything is, unfortunately, pushing toward that being the case.

The groups loosely affiliated members are launching research studies that are trying to piece together the puzzle of coronavirus infection, long covid and cancer.

Wallace the University of Pennsylvania scientist considered a father of the field of human mitochondrial genetics, which explores the power plants that fuel human cells is researching how covid affects energy production in cells and how that might influence cancer vulnerability.

Separately, biodata experts are sequencing the gene profiles of organs from people who succumbed to covid and underwent autopsies.

And a University of Colorado team is studying whether covid reawakens dormant cancer cells in mice. Their provocative findings, according to a preprint report released in April, showed that when mice that were cancer survivors were infected with SARS-CoV-2, dormant cancer cells proliferated in the lungs. They saw similar results with the flu virus.

Ashani Weeraratna, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the Colorado study, which she did not participate in, is part of a new field of work that emerged during the past decade that drills into what stimuli can reawaken cancer cells.

She said it is consistent with research highlighting the importance of the immune system in activating cells from dormancy, so it makes sense that something like influenza or covid that triggers inflammation could change in the immune microenvironment. But the results surprised her because its rare the data are so striking.

Weeraratna said that while she believes the Colorado studys findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. Studies in mice often do not translate to human experiences. She said its also important to emphasize that the research and other recent papers focusing on covid and cancer involve acute infection or long covid; they do not suggest a link between the coronavirus vaccine and cancer misinformation that some anti-vaccine groups have spread in recent months.

Still, Weeraratna said, theres an important public health takeaway.

Mitigating risk of infection may be of particular importance for cancer patients, Weeraratna said. Based on the studys findings, measures adopted by vulnerable patients starting in the early days of the pandemic wearing masks, avoiding crowded places, getting vaccines become even more important.

Other studies offer telltale clues about the link between viruses and cancer.

Pathologists from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences reported in 2021 in the journal Communications Biology that SARS-CoV-2 proteins fueled the replication of a herpesvirus considered one of the major viruses leading to cancer. Other studies have implicated the coronavirus in helping to stimulate dormant breast cancer cells.

A paper published in 2023 in the journal Biochimie explored mechanisms the coronavirus could exploit to aggravate several forms of cancer, including lung, colorectal, pancreatic and oral. Researchers suggested the most likely pathway was through disrupting the bodys ability to suppress tumors, but researchers acknowledged a lack of direct evidence to support the theory.

Wallace believes the dearth of hard data on the coronavirus and cancer reflects policy choices more than scientific challenges.

I would say most governments dont want to think about long covid and much less long covid and cancer. It cost them so much to deal with covid. So there is very little funding for the long-term effects of the virus, he said. I dont think thats a wise choice.

From his practice in this Southern town, Patel is conducting his own research into what he has taken to calling an unusual pattern of cancers. He is driven by watching patients especially younger ones die so quickly.

Hes looking at potential correlations between long-covid markers and unusual cancers. He has collected data from nearly 300 patients and wants to create a national registry to analyze trends. So far, his office has logged more than 15 patients with multiple cancers, more than 35 patients with rare cancers and more than 15 couples with new cancers since the pandemic began in 2020.

Patel theorizes the effects of coronavirus infections could be cumulative in people infected multiple times. Pandemic-related stress may compound the threat, he said, by exacerbating inflammation.

If a link is established between the virus and cancer, he said, doctors might identify patients at greater risk and implement screenings earlier and even put some patients on anti-inflammatory drugs.

Mammograms and colonoscopies would have done nothing to prevent the illness of one of Patels patients, a 78-year-old diagnosed with three cancers throat, liver and lungs within a year.

Then theres Bob and Bonnie Krall, a couple who in a 14-month stretch endured three types of cancer between them, despite neither having a family history or genetic predisposition.

Cancers typically start in one part of the body and spread. Its rare for discrete cancers to begin in different parts of the body during a short window of time. Patel said the Kralls and the 78-year-old had coronavirus antibodies through the roof in their blood although hes not sure how that relates to cancer, if at all.

Patel met the Kralls in 2022 when Bob was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a cancer of the blood and bone marrow. During one of her husbands treatments, Bonnie mentioned she was dealing with her own health issues related to long covid, including stomach pain. Medications werent helping. Patel ran tests and discovered Bonnie had cancer, too. By the time she was scheduled for surgery a few weeks after diagnosis, the malignancy in her abdomen had grown three more centimeters and weighed 8.5 pounds. This year, Bobs doctors found cancer in his lungs.

Bobs blood cancer, CLL, is considered rare with only four or five cases in every 100,000 people, but he has been surprised to find four of his neighbors and friends have it, too.

Its like a cold. It seems like everyone has it, said Bob, 73, a flight instructor.

Even before Patel mentioned his research, Bonnie, 74, who used to work part-time as a front desk assistant and lives with her husband in Fort Mill, S.C., had wondered whether their cancers were related to the coronavirus. She was infected shortly before her cancer diagnosis.

Maybe if we didnt get covid she started before trailing off. Bob shrugged and finished for her. Maybe we would have been better? Maybe we would have been worse.

correction

A previous version of this article incorrectly said Ashani Weeraratna is a physician. She holds a PhD, not an MD. The article has been corrected.

See the article here:

'Unusual' cancers emerged after the pandemic. Doctors ask if covid is to blame. - The Washington Post

(NewsNation) Bonnie and Bob Krall are a married couple who got through the COVID-19 pandemic with relative ease. Bonnie had a couple of mild cases, and Bob had a case that brought no symptoms.

We were both healthy as can be, said Bonnie Krall. We had just finished a giant trip to the Western United States, we came back, and bam, Bob was diagnosed.

Bob didnt have COVID but instead two very rare forms of cancer. Then, Bonnie got similar news.

I had an 8 1/2 pound tumor in my abdomen, she told NewsNations Elizabeth Vargas Reports. I was healthy in December, and by April, they diagnosed the cancer.

The Kralls are among a growing number of people who had COVID and then developed rare kinds of cancer, often more than one kind.

We started noticing some very unusual patterns, said the Kralls physician, Dr. Kashyap Patel. He and his colleagues at Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates have documented some very concerning links between COVID and cancer:

Patel says the inflammation that often accompanies COVID may be key to finding the link to the cancers people are contracting.

Inflammation triggers many genetic changes in a genome that can create a propensity of developing cancer in certain individuals, said Patel. Im analyzing close to 300 patients data on the inflammatory biomarkers in the body with Long COVID antibodies and if they had an unusual cancer, he added.

For Bob and Bonnie Krall, at least, the immediate prognosis is good. Bob is in remission, and Bonnie is close to it, she says. But learning exactly why it happened to them may always be a mystery.

Who knows? How can we ever know that?

See more here:

COVID-19 may be linked to rare cancers: Doctors - NewsNation Now

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

Read the original:

Fauci confesses COVID guidelines weren't based on science. What a joke - USA TODAY

Early June has seen a "burstof COVID" along with a variety pack of colds, viruses and other seasonal ailments that are on the rise, according to Long Island medical professionals.

While some of the viruses being seen tend to be more prevalent assummer approaches, possible factors driving the uptick in COVID-19 cases include the circulation of new variants as well as morepeople gathering and travelingduring warmer weather, experts say.

Positive tests for rhinoviruses andenteroviruses, which can cause anything from a common cold to serious respiratory illness, have been steadily going upsince March nationwide, according to national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 26% of tests were positive at the end of May compared with about 15% in March.

Enteroviruses are especially commonin the summer.We are definitely seeing our fair share of colds and fever viruses, said. Dr. Eve Meltzer Krief, who has a pediatric practice in Huntington.

Positive COVID-19 tests, which don't include results from home tests, have ticked up slightly nationwideafter being steady since March, according to the CDCchart.

Many of the illnesses share symptoms, such as coughs and muscle aches, which make it difficult for people to figure out what is making them sick. While it's important to identify COVID and flu, which have particular treatments, in most cases it's more important to monitor and manage symptoms.

We don't really differentiate between all the summer viral infections, said Erin Hunt, Northwell Health-GoHealth Urgent Cares lead physician assistant. We care most about the ones that have a different treatment like COVID and flu.

Although far from thewaves of the winter, cases of COVID-19are still popping up all around Long Island, experts said. The new variants KP.2 and KP.3 appear to be driving recent infections.

We are seeing a burst of COVID, Hunt said of the GoHeath urgent care centers on Long Island. I think its related to the new variant thats circulating, plus an increase in travel. People are traveling all over.

As of Tuesday, there were 99 people hospitalized with COVID-19 on Long Island and 539 across the state, the highest since April, according to the state Health Department.

National early indicators, which represent a portion of COVID-19 tests and emergency department visits, are up .08% and 5.1%,respectively, as of May 25,according to the CDC

Krief said most of the COVID-19 cases she is seeing are in babies and young children, and she has noticed a spikein recent weeks.

Hunt said its important to test a person with symptoms such as cough, sore throat, nasal congestion and fatigue for COVID-19.

Especially if you are feeling really run down, we want to make sure we're not dealing with COVID as opposed to just your standard upper respiratory infection, Hunt said.

Dr. Sharon Nachman, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Stony Brook Childrens Hospital, said if the current variant becomes much more highly infectious and peoples antibody levels aren't strong enough to fight it,there could bea shift that signals more cases.

Many people suffering with stuffy noses, cough and sore throats could just have seasonal allergies. But sometimes its more than that. Health practitioners said there are a few ways to tell the difference.

Generally with allergies, youre going to have watery eyes, itchy eyes, runny nose, maybe itching in your throat, Hunt said. With a viral infection, if you do have discharge from your eyes or your nose, it's going to be a little bit thicker. Youre not going to have the itching." With allergies, however, "You might notice your symptoms are worse on days with a high pollen count.

Another telltale sign that you might have COVID-19 and not an allergy is shortness of breath, said Dr. Robert Schreiber, a retired pulmonary care physician and former director of the pulmonary division at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn.

Shortness of breath from allergies would be uncommon unless you already have asthma, he said. Air pollution can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Common colds, generally caused by a rhinovirus, tend to have more mild symptoms than those of COVID-19.

Fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea those are not typical of colds, Schreiber said. Those are not typical of allergies.

Nachman said May and June are prime times for mononucleosis, a contagious disease caused by the Epstein-Barr virus.

Everybody is going to parties and sharing drinks and the stuff you didn't do in December, she said. Every high school kid is going to a party, going to a prom, and it incubates for a month. We are going to see mono, and tons of it.

With the exception of COVID-19 and influenza, which can be treated with specific antiviral medicines, viral illnesses need to run their course.

People can treat the symptoms like fever and aches with pain relievers and stay hydrated. Antibiotics will not work, even though some people ask their doctors for them anyway.

People who overuse and misuse antibiotics may be adding to the number of drug-resistant germs.

This type of season contributes to our overuse of antibiotics significantly because you're getting sick and you want to get places and do things, she said. People think if they get an antibiotic they will get better faster. They wont, and this will contribute to antibiotic overuse in our environment. And that's a very worrisome thing for us.

Lisa joined Newsday as a staff writer in 2019. She previously worked at amNewYork, the New York Daily News and the Asbury Park Press covering politics, government and general assignment.

Link:

Early June seeing uptick in summer colds, viruses, COVID-19 cases on Long Island, doctors say - Newsday

Another new version of the COVID-19 vaccine will probably be coming this fall.The Food and Drug Administrations committee of independent advisers voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that the agency tell vaccine manufacturers to update the COVID-19 shots so they will be more effective against the JN.1 lineage of the coronavirus.The committee voted on the question, For the 2024-2025 Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., does the committee recommend a monovalent JN.1-lineage vaccine composition? All 16 of the advisers voted yes.The decision now goes to the full FDA. If the agency agrees with its advisory committee, the new shot will be a monovalent vaccine, offering protection against one coronavirus variant. Some previous vaccines have been bivalent, meaning they were formulated to protect against two variants.There are a few virus variants in circulation now, but they are relatively similar.JN.1 and its descendants KP.2 and KP.3 are the versions of the virus that are most common in the U.S. right now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The FDA told the advisory committee Wednesday that studies have shown that currently available COVID-19 vaccines appear to be less effective against the variants that are now in circulation.When manufacturers updated their vaccines last year to better match the variants that were in circulation then, it seemed to offer better protection. Match does matter somewhat, said Dr. Jerry Weir, director of the Division of Viral Products in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.JN.1 has continued to evolve, and it makes it somewhat difficult to pick the particular specific strain to be used this year, he told the committee. Because of manufacturing timelines, experts have to make predictions now if they want a new vaccine for fall. This is what the FDAs committee has done for the past couple of years, and I think its worked pretty well, Weir said.COVID-19 cases are relatively low right now. Only 3% to 4% of people who are getting tested are positive for the virus, said Dr. Natalie Thornburg, acting chief of the Laboratory Branch of the Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. By comparison, at the peak of the Omicron surge in late 2021, test positivity rates were at 30%.Hospitalization rates are also the lowest they have been since March 2020, Thornburg said.Many people have some protection against the disease through vaccination or because theyve had COVID before.People who got the current COVID-19 vaccine which was updated last fall have protection from serious disease and death across all age groups, but as with past formulations, that protection wanes over time, Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles, vaccine effectiveness program lead with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told the committee.The advisers agreed that more people need to get updated vaccines. Only about 25% of adults have gotten the most recent shot, according to a presentation to the committee.In only the fall and winter months last season, COVID-19 sent more than half a million people in the U.S. to the hospital and killed 40,000, according to data presented at the meeting.The people most likely to get seriously ill or die were unvaccinated, Link-Gelles said, and among the children who were hospitalized, half had no underlying conditions.This, I think, emphasizes the need for vaccination regardless of underlying condition, status or age, she said.The COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers told the committee that they have done some work to prepare for the FDAs decision on the composition of the vaccine. Animal and lab studies show that shots made by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Novavax that target the JN.1 variant seem to work well and are safe, the companies said.Novavax said its updated shot would need to be the JN.1 version because its protein vaccine takes about six months to make, and thats the version it has been working on. The company said it could get the shot to U.S. warehouses by August.Pfizer and Modernas mRNA vaccines can be developed more quickly, and those companies said they could have either a JN.1 shot or a KP.2 shot ready for fall. Moderna said it could supply the U.S. market by mid-August, and Pfizer said its shot could be immediately ready upon approval.The committee discussed but did not vote on whether the shot should match JN.1 or KP.2. Most of the members preferred JN.1 so Americans would have an option to get an mRNA vaccine or a more traditional protein-based vaccine.Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told the committee that the FDA will take these recommendations into consideration as it makes its final choice.

Another new version of the COVID-19 vaccine will probably be coming this fall.

The Food and Drug Administrations committee of independent advisers voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that the agency tell vaccine manufacturers to update the COVID-19 shots so they will be more effective against the JN.1 lineage of the coronavirus.

The committee voted on the question, For the 2024-2025 Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., does the committee recommend a monovalent JN.1-lineage vaccine composition? All 16 of the advisers voted yes.

The decision now goes to the full FDA. If the agency agrees with its advisory committee, the new shot will be a monovalent vaccine, offering protection against one coronavirus variant. Some previous vaccines have been bivalent, meaning they were formulated to protect against two variants.

There are a few virus variants in circulation now, but they are relatively similar.

JN.1 and its descendants KP.2 and KP.3 are the versions of the virus that are most common in the U.S. right now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA told the advisory committee Wednesday that studies have shown that currently available COVID-19 vaccines appear to be less effective against the variants that are now in circulation.

When manufacturers updated their vaccines last year to better match the variants that were in circulation then, it seemed to offer better protection. Match does matter somewhat, said Dr. Jerry Weir, director of the Division of Viral Products in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

JN.1 has continued to evolve, and it makes it somewhat difficult to pick the particular specific strain to be used this year, he told the committee. Because of manufacturing timelines, experts have to make predictions now if they want a new vaccine for fall. This is what the FDAs committee has done for the past couple of years, and I think its worked pretty well, Weir said.

COVID-19 cases are relatively low right now. Only 3% to 4% of people who are getting tested are positive for the virus, said Dr. Natalie Thornburg, acting chief of the Laboratory Branch of the Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. By comparison, at the peak of the Omicron surge in late 2021, test positivity rates were at 30%.

Hospitalization rates are also the lowest they have been since March 2020, Thornburg said.

Many people have some protection against the disease through vaccination or because theyve had COVID before.

People who got the current COVID-19 vaccine which was updated last fall have protection from serious disease and death across all age groups, but as with past formulations, that protection wanes over time, Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles, vaccine effectiveness program lead with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told the committee.

The advisers agreed that more people need to get updated vaccines. Only about 25% of adults have gotten the most recent shot, according to a presentation to the committee.

In only the fall and winter months last season, COVID-19 sent more than half a million people in the U.S. to the hospital and killed 40,000, according to data presented at the meeting.

The people most likely to get seriously ill or die were unvaccinated, Link-Gelles said, and among the children who were hospitalized, half had no underlying conditions.

This, I think, emphasizes the need for vaccination regardless of underlying condition, status or age, she said.

The COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers told the committee that they have done some work to prepare for the FDAs decision on the composition of the vaccine. Animal and lab studies show that shots made by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Novavax that target the JN.1 variant seem to work well and are safe, the companies said.

Novavax said its updated shot would need to be the JN.1 version because its protein vaccine takes about six months to make, and thats the version it has been working on. The company said it could get the shot to U.S. warehouses by August.

Pfizer and Modernas mRNA vaccines can be developed more quickly, and those companies said they could have either a JN.1 shot or a KP.2 shot ready for fall. Moderna said it could supply the U.S. market by mid-August, and Pfizer said its shot could be immediately ready upon approval.

The committee discussed but did not vote on whether the shot should match JN.1 or KP.2. Most of the members preferred JN.1 so Americans would have an option to get an mRNA vaccine or a more traditional protein-based vaccine.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told the committee that the FDA will take these recommendations into consideration as it makes its final choice.

The rest is here:

FDA vaccine advisers vote unanimously in favor of updated COVID-19 shot for fall - WLWT Cincinnati