Category: Corona Virus

Page 66«..1020..65666768..8090..»

Firearm-related deaths among youth rose during COVID-19 pandemic, says Kaiser report – cleveland.com

February 28, 2024

CLEVELAND, Ohio Firearm-related deaths increased among children and adolescents after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with seven children per day dying by firearm in 2022, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report on the impact of gun violence on children and teens.

The United States has the highest rate of children and teens ages 17 and below dying from firearm violence compared to similar countries, the report said. Firearms now kill more children and teens than any other cause, surpassing car crashes, and youth who are exposed to gun violence are at greater risk for mental health problems, according to the report.

Among the findings:

Firearm deaths up in Ohio, surrounding states

Ohio had a 50% increase in firearm death rates per 100,000 children and adolescents, when the Kaiser report also looked at U.S. states and the percent of change in firearm death rates. This section of the report compared pre-pandemic years (2017-19) against pandemic years (2020-21).

Firearm death rates were per 100,000 children and adolescents in 2020-21. Data was not available for several states.

Here are Ohio and its contiguous states, ranked from highest percentage to lowest:

Among all U.S. States, North Carolina had the highest increase in firearm death rates (104%), followed by Wisconsin (100%).

Julie Washington covers healthcare for cleveland.com. Read previous stories at this link.

More:

Firearm-related deaths among youth rose during COVID-19 pandemic, says Kaiser report - cleveland.com

Researchers find unexpected connection between SARS-CoV-2 and fragile X syndrome – Medical Xpress

February 28, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

preprint

trusted source

proofread

close

How does coronavirus spread through the body? A new study, available on the preprint server bioRxiv, can help us answer that question. Professor Jakob Nilsson from the Novo Nordisk Center for Protein Research is one of the researchers responsible for the study.

"When a virus infects the body, it hijacks part of the body's machinery either to produce new virus particles or to counteract the cell's antiviral defense. What we wanted to know was which part of the machinery SARS-CoV-2 targets," Nilsson says.

SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus variant that caused the COVID19 pandemic.

"We were extremely surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks proteins associated with fragile X syndrome, which is the most common hereditary cause of intellectual disability," Nilsson says.

To further explore the connection between coronavirus and the fragile X-related proteins, Postdoc Dimitriya Garvanska, who did the lab work, used various cell-biological and biochemical methods to understand the process.

Fragile X syndrome, which is caused by a defect in the so-called FMR1 gene, is the most common cause of hereditary intellectual disability. It is characterized by intellectual disabilityoften moderate to severe in boys/men and mild in girls/women. About 1 in 4,000 baby boys and 1 in 10,000 baby girls are born with fragile X syndrome.

The team wanted to know whether hijacking the fragile X-related proteins was vital to the virus' ability to spread through the body. Together with a group of researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch, they therefore produced a "mutant virus."

"We mutated a small part of the virus protein, NSP3, that binds to the fragile X-related proteins, and the cell culture test showed that this reduces the virus' ability to spread. Moreover, tests on hamsters showed that infection with the mutated virus had a less severe impact on the lungs in the early stages of infection," Garvanska explains.

"That is, binding to fragile X-related proteins is vital to the virus' ability to spread. Subsequent tests showed that these proteins are part of the cell's antiviral defense, and that SARS-CoV-2 seeks to counteract this defense system by hijacking the proteins."

The results of the study may indicate that persons with fragile X syndrome are more susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.

"This suggests that we should perhaps be more attentive to these patients," Nilsson says.

Aside from identifying the connection between coronavirus and fragile X syndrome, Nilsson, Garvanska and their colleagues also gained a deeper understanding of fragile X syndrome.

"We know that fragile X-related proteins are key to brain development. Because when we do not have enough of them, we run into problems. But we do not know why they are so important. In this study, we have learned that they bind to another protein, UBAP2L, which helps determine which proteins the cell produces," Nilsson says.

The researchers also found that mutations in the fragile X-related proteins prevent them from binding to UBAP2L.

"This suggests that to understand fragile X syndrome we need to understand how this affects the production of proteins in the cell," Nilsson explains.

While the new study can be described as fundamental research, the results may nevertheless prove useful in future treatment.

"So far, this is speculation. But basically, the more insight we gain into these mechanisms, the better are our chances of impacting them in the future," Nilsson concludes.

More information: Dimitriya H. Garvanska et al, SARS-CoV-2 hijacks fragile X mental retardation proteins for efficient infection, bioRxiv (2023). DOI: 10.1101/2023.09.01.555899

Journal information: bioRxiv

Read more:

Researchers find unexpected connection between SARS-CoV-2 and fragile X syndrome - Medical Xpress

No, getting a COVID vaccine does not prevent donating blood to the American Red Cross for 1 year – WKYC.com

February 28, 2024

An Instagram user with 2.6 million followers posted suggesting that getting certain COVID-19 vaccines can keep you from donating blood for 1 year, which is not true

CLEVELAND The pandemic may be over, but misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 are still being spread on the internet, particularly when it comes to vaccines.

We recently came across a post on Instagram by a person who goes by Rogan O'Handley, who has 2.6 million followers on the platform under the username @dc_draino. The post (pictured below) shows screenshots of a question about the coronavirus vaccine that potential blood donors have to answer before donating blood to the American Red Cross.

This person claimed in the caption of his post that his good friend told him that "if you received certain jabs in the last year, they won't draw your blood," apparently referring to COVID vaccines.

To VERIFY whether this claim is true when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, we checked the following sources:

First, I personally took the potential blood donor survey, called the American Red Cross RapidPass Survey, to see if the question that was screenshotted and posted by the Instagram user popped up.

The question did indeed pop up as No. 79 in the survey, and it asked, "Have you EVER had a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine?" Then, below the question it says that, "If you answer 'YES' to the question, please call 1-800-RED-CROSS (1-800-733-2767) before coming in to donate to determine if this will affect your eligibility."

I called that number, and reached out to the American Red Cross via email, and a representative told me this:

"The question is asked to determine if the COVID vaccine they've received is FDA-approved in order to faithfully adhere to the FDA's eligibility guidelines. The donor will be asked which company manufactured the vaccine they received. As long as the donor gives the name of the manufacturer, the manufacturer is FDA-approved, and the donor is feeling well, then they are immediately eligible to donate. If they cannot remember the name of the vaccine manufacturer, they will be asked to wait two weeks."

To confirm this, we checked with the FDA, and their representative told us the exact same thing. The representative also pointed us to the page on the FDA website where this policy is posted publicly.

So we can VERIFY that the claim that if you've received certain COVID-19 vaccines in the last year, they won't draw your blood at the American Red Cross, is false. The longest waiting period after a COVID-19 vaccine for anyone is 14 days, and that's only if your vaccine was not FDA approved (more information on approved vaccines can be found here).

Remember, regardless of which coronavirus vaccine you received, blood donors must be feeling well and have a normal temperature on the day they donate blood, and blood donors are very much in need right now.

Do you have something you'd like our team toVERIFY? Email your question or claim to verify@wkyc.com or text it to 216-344-3300.

Read more:

No, getting a COVID vaccine does not prevent donating blood to the American Red Cross for 1 year - WKYC.com

New Research Reveals High Prevalence Of Persistent COVID Infections – Health Policy Watch

February 28, 2024

A much higher percentage of the population has experienced persistent COVID-19 infections lasting more than 30 days than initially assumed, according to new research by the University of Oxford.

The study, published on February 21 in Nature, found that one to three of every 100 infections may last a month or longer.

The scientists, using data from the Office for National Statistics COVID Infection Survey (ONS-CIS), found 381 individuals with the same viral infection for a month or longer including 54 whose persistent infection lasted two months and two over six months out of 77,561 infections detected through ONS-CIS between November 2020 and August 2022.

In some cases, the infecting lineage had gone extinct in the general population. More than 90,000 ONS-CIS participants were sampled monthly for almost three years.

What we uncovered is striking, given the leading hypothesis that many of the variants of concern emerged wholly or partially during long-term chronic infections in immunocompromised individuals, the authors wrote in their paper. As the ONS-CIS is a community-based surveillance study, our observations suggest that the pool of people in which long-term infections could occur, and hence potential sources of divergent variants, may be much larger than generally thought.

In other words, the study debunks an assumption that new variants are only formed because of prolonged COVID-19 infections in immunocompromised individuals. This new study shows that the prevalence of persistent COVID-19 infections in the general population may be much higher and, therefore, also play a role in the evolution of the virus.

Relatedly, the authors found that people with persistent infections lasting for 30 days or longer were 55% more likely to report having long COVID than people with more typical infections.

Although the link between viral persistence and Long COVID may not be causal, these results suggest persistent infections could contribute to the pathophysiology of long COVID, said Co-lead author Dr Katrina Lythgoe of Oxfords Department of Biology and its Pandemic Sciences Institute.

The paper carefully points out that not every persistent infection can lead to long-term COVID-19, and not all cases of long-term COVID-19 are due to persistent infection. Indeed, said Lythgoe, many other possible mechanisms have been suggested to contribute to Long COVID, including inflammation, organ damage, and micro thrombosis.

Nonetheless, these results suggest that persistent infections could be contributing to the pathophysiology of long COVID, the paper reads.

What about the rate of mutation?

Some people who developed persistent infections had many mutations, suggesting they could act as reservoirs to seed new variants of concern. However, this was only sometimes the case.

Certain individuals showed an extremely high number of mutations, including mutations that define new coronavirus variants, alter target sites for monoclonal antibodies, and introduce changes to the coronavirus spike protein, the authors wrote. However, most individuals did not harbour a large number of mutations, suggesting that not every persistent infection will be a potential source for new concerning variants.

However, co-lead author Dr. Mahan Ghafari of Oxfords Pandemic Sciences Institute in its Nuffield Department of Medicine, cautioned that the data from ONS-CIS did not include details about the medical history of people with persistent infections, so it was unknown how many of them were immunocompromised, such as with cancer, advanced HIV, etc.

He said the hope is that there would be further studies to better understand these individuals who developed persistent COVID and their health implications, and also to better understand how likely it is for these persistent infections to transmit highly mutated variants to the rest of the population.

Finally, the scientists also found rare infections with the same variant. They identified only 60 reinfections by the same major lineage, suggesting that infection does build at least some immunity in infected individuals from the same variant.

Our observations highlight the continuing importance of community-based genomic surveillance both to monitor the emergence and spread of new variants, but also to gain a fundamental understanding of the natural history and evolution of novel pathogens and their clinical implications for patients, Ghafari said.

Image Credits: peterschreiber.media/Shutterstock , Flickr NIAID, Flickr.

Combat the infodemic in health information and support health policy reporting from the global South. Our growing network of journalists in Africa, Asia, Geneva and New York connect the dots between regional realities and the big global debates, with evidence-based, open access news and analysis. To make a personal or organisational contribution click here on PayPal.

Read the rest here:

New Research Reveals High Prevalence Of Persistent COVID Infections - Health Policy Watch

Risk Profile IDs COVID Patients Who Will Benefit From Baricitinib – HealthDay

February 28, 2024

MONDAY, Feb. 26, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) risk profile identifies hospitalized COVID-19 patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment, according to a study published online Feb. 27 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Noting that the ACTT risk profile previously demonstrated that hospitalized patients in the high-risk quartile benefit most from remdesivir, Catharine I. Paules, M.D., from the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, and colleagues examined potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile in a post hoc analysis of the ACTT-2 trial, conducted in 999 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 67 trial sites in eight countries. Participants received baricitinib plus remdesivir or placebo plus remdesivir.

The researchers found that baricitinib plus remdesivir was associated with a reduced risk for death, reduced progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, and improved recovery rate compared with placebo plus remdesivir in the high-risk quartile (hazard ratios, 0.38, 0.57, and 1.53, respectively). Compared with control participants, those receiving baricitinib plus remdesivir had significantly larger increases in absolute lymphocyte count and significantly larger decreases in absolute neutrophil count after five days, with the largest effects seen in the high-risk quartile.

"To our knowledge, no other clinical trials have assessed clinical benefit from an immunomodulator with relation to dynamics in hematologic parameters, and these data suggest the relevance of these measurements in predicting treatment response," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Link:

Risk Profile IDs COVID Patients Who Will Benefit From Baricitinib - HealthDay

No update of weekly coronavirus numbers; Ohio Health Department blames technical glitch – cleveland.com

February 28, 2024

CLEVELAND, Ohio The state did not release the number of new COVID-19 cases early Thursday afternoon as usual due to a technical issue, a spokesperson said.

New weekly case numbers are normally released at 2 p.m.

Last week, the number of new COVID-19 cases in Ohio stayed steady at 7,199, only two cases up from the previous week.

The slight increase ended a five-week run of falling weekly case numbers.

As recently as early January, weekly case numbers hit 15,046.

The total COVID-19 case count since early 2020 in Ohio has reached at least 3,712,548.

Previously: Nov. 16 Ohio COVID-19 update

Feb. 22 recap

* Total reported cases: 3,705,349, up 7,197.

* Total individuals with updated vaccine: 1,275,978, up 11,638.

* Total reported deaths: 43,608, up 91.

* Total reported hospitalizations: 149,643, up 236.

* Total reported ICU admissions: 15,722, up 12.

Julie Washington covers healthcare for cleveland.com. Read previous stories at this link.

Visit link:

No update of weekly coronavirus numbers; Ohio Health Department blames technical glitch - cleveland.com

Healthy runner’s stroke followed a bad bout of COVID-19 – Source ONE News

February 28, 2024

On a ride to high school one morning, Shelley Marshall asked her daughter how things were going with her field hockey team.

At least, that's what she intended to say. The words came out so garbled that her daughter said, "Mom, what is going on? Are you having a stroke or something? Look at me."

Marshall looked fine. Although slurred speech is a classic stroke symptom, she didn't have a droopy face or arm weakness. In a clear voice, she told her daughter not to worry.

Marshall, though, was concerned.

Two days earlier, she noticed that she'd slurred her own name. Her blood pressure had recently been slightly elevated. And she was still recovering from a serious bout of COVID-19, her third. All of this was unusual for Marshall, then 47 and in excellent health, thanks in part to running nearly every day.

Marshall called her boyfriend, Lyle Sarver, to tell him she was on her way to the emergency room at the hospital in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where they both worked in administration.

He met her there. By then, she felt totally fine.

A brain scan revealed otherwise.

The carotid arteries in the neck are major blood vessels for the brain. One of Marshall's was almost completely blocked in two places. She also had a carotid artery dissection, which is a tear of the inner layer of the wall of a carotid artery.

Despite those problems, Marshall's symptoms were still somewhat minimal. Doctors wanted to gather more information via an angiogram, a scan that shows blood flow through vessels.

While waiting for it, the symptoms began to build.

Marshall garbled her speech more often. She noticed she could no longer say certain words, especially "perfectly," which she tried over and over.

She had a headache that kept getting worse and some paralysis on her right side.

By now, her daughter, Kennley McCown, was there. Marshall was in so much pain she feared she would die. Just saying "I love you" to her daughter took all the strength she had.

Sarver feared that Marshall might have lasting deficiencies.

The angiogram was done the next morning. That afternoon, Marshall underwent a procedure to clear the blockages in her carotid artery. Doctors placed three stents to improve blood flow. The surgery was expected to last three hours; it took six because her problems turned out to be more complex.

As soon as her medication wore off, Sarver asked Marshall if she knew who he was and where she was.

"Lyle," she answered. "The hospital."

Kennley also tested her for several days.

"Say 'perfectly,' Mom," she'd ask.

Each time Marshall's pronunciation was perfect.

They all felt better knowing she avoided any major cognitive deficiencies. Since Marshall's stroke in March 2023, her memory is slightly fuzzier, but nothing significant, she said.

While she was in the hospital, doctors made sure she had no other issues. They also sought a reason for her stroke. The lack of other reasons along with the emerging link between COVID-19 and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke led her doctors to believe her severe case of COVID-19 may have contributed to her stroke.

Marshall took two months off work to heal and regain her strength. She and Kennley went on a long-planned trip to the beach in Florida, but only after she got her doctor's clearance to fly and had researched specialists at her destination, just in case.

"I feel tremendously lucky, but I'm also still a little scared, especially about COVID," she said. "I do what I can to prevent it."

Stories From the Heart chronicles the inspiring journeys of heart disease and stroke survivors, caregivers and advocates.

Read the rest here:

Healthy runner's stroke followed a bad bout of COVID-19 - Source ONE News

Researchers find many ‘natural’ and COVID-19 deaths likely related | Penn Today – Penn Today

February 18, 2024

Nearly 1.2 million people have died from COVID-19 in the United States according to official federal counts, but multiple studies of excess mortality suggest that these totals are undercounted. While excess deaths provide an estimation of deaths that likely would not have occurred under normal, non-pandemic conditions, there is scant evidence into whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus contributed to these additional deaths, or whether these deaths were caused by other factors such as health care disruptions or socioeconomic challenges.

Now, a new study led by the University of Pennsylvania and Boston University provides the first concrete data showing that many of these excess deaths were likely uncounted COVID-19 deaths. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, the study compared reported COVID-19 deaths to excess deaths due to non-COVID, natural causes, such as cardiovascular diseases and other chronic illnesses, and found that increases in non-COVID excess deaths occurred at the same time or in the month prior to increases in reported COVID-19 deaths in most US counties.

The study provides compelling evidence that the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic went well beyond what is estimated by COVID-19 deaths alone. It also raises important questions about the variation across the country in the coding of COVID-19 deaths on death certificates, says Irma Elo, coauthor of the paper and professor in the Department of Sociology in Penns School of Arts & Sciences. The study also points to the overlooked burden that the pandemic had in nonmetropolitan areas where health care resources are often inadequate or lacking.

The researchers explain that focusing on excess deaths by natural causes rather than all-cause excess death estimates provides a more accurate understanding of the true impact of COVID-19. This is because it eliminates external causes for mortality, such as intentional or unintentional injuries, for which COVID-19 would not be a direct contributing factor.

Our findings show that many COVID-19 deaths went uncounted during the pandemic, says study corresponding author Andrew Stokes, a Penn alum, member of Elos American Mortality Center, and associate professor of global health at Boston University School of Public Health.

The temporal correlation between reported COVID-19 deaths and excess deaths classified as non-COVID-19 natural causes offers insight into the causes of these deaths, Stokes says. We observed peaks in non-COVID-19 excess deaths in the same or prior month as COVID-19 deaths, a pattern consistent with these being unrecognized COVID-19 deaths that were missed due to low community awareness and a lack of COVID-19 testing.

Lead author Eugenio Paglino, a Ph.D. candidate in demography and sociology in Penn Arts & Sciences adds that, if the primary explanation for these deaths were health care interruptions and delays in care, the non-COVID excess deaths would likely occur after a peak in reported COVID-19 deaths and subsequent interruptions in care. However, this pattern was not observed nationally or in any of the geographic subregions we assessed.

The researchers used novel statistical methods to analyze monthly data on natural-cause deaths and reported COVID-19 deaths for 3,127 counties during the first 30 months of the pandemic, from March 2020 to August 2022. They estimated that 1.2 million excess natural-cause deaths occurred in United States counties during this period and found that roughly 163,000 of these deaths did not have COVID-19 listed on the death certificates.

Analyzing both temporal and geographical patterns of these deaths, the researchers found that the gap between these non-COVID excess deaths and reported COVID-19 deaths was largest in nonmetropolitan counties, the West, and the South, and that the second year of the pandemic saw almost as many non-COVID-19 excess deaths in the as in the first year, contrary to previous research. Meanwhile, metropolitan areas in New England and the mid-Atlantic states were the only areas to report more COVID-19 deaths than non-COVID-19 excess deaths.

These findings imply that, contrary to our expectations, the U.S. death investigation system failed to capture a sizeable portion of all COVID-19 deaths well after the initial emergency period and into the third year of the pandemic, Paglino says.

The researchers say that many of these geographical differences in death patterns are likely explained by differences in state policies, coding of COVID-19 deaths on death certificates, or political biases by local officials that influenced COVID-19 policies. In rural areas, for example, COVID-19 testing was more limited, and political biases or stigma around COVID-19 may have affected whether COVID-19 was listed on a death certificate. Conversely, reported COVID-19 deaths may have exceeded non-COVID-19 excess deaths due to successful mitigation policies that encouraged physical distancing and masking and likely lowered cases of other respiratory diseases. Certain protocols in some states, such as in Massachusetts, also enabled death investigators to list COVID-19 as an official cause of death within 60 days of a diagnosis (until March 2022), rather than the 30-day limit in other states.

Geographic variation in the quality of cause of death reporting not only adversely affected pandemic response in areas where COVID-19 deaths were underreported, but it also reduced the accuracy of our national surveillance data and modeling, says study coauthor Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Accurate information on how many people in a community die from COVID-19or any other causeis essential for making decisions about public health, says study coauthor Maria Glymour, chair and professor of epidemiology at BUSPH. It is also important for families. Everyone deserves to know why a loved one died. Resources and commitment to ensure accurate death investigations are essential, and these findings of uncounted COVID-19 deaths indicate those resources are lacking in many communities.

Members of the team are working on understanding how the pandemic is affecting U.S. death rates, even as the acute pandemic has ended. The researchers hope this new data will encourage future analyses using hospitalizations and other local data to continue to parse uncounted COVID-19 deaths from excess natural-cause deaths as well as deaths due to external causes.

Jillian McKoy of Boston University greatly contributed to this story.

Irma Elo is a Tamsen and Michael Brown Presidential Professor in the Department of Sociology in the School of Arts & Sciences and a research associate at the Population Studies Center and Population Aging Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Eugenio Paglino is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology in the School of Arts & Sciences and at the Population Studies Center at Penn.

Andrew Stokes is an associate professor in the Department of Global Health at the School of Public Health at Boston University.

Katherine Hempstead is a senior policy advisor at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Other authors include Samuel H. Preston of Penn Arts & Sciences; Dielle J. Lundberg, Zhenwei Zhou, Rafeya Raquib, and M. Maria Glymour of BU; Joe A. Wasserman of the Research Triangle Institute; Elizabeth Wrigley-Field of the University of Minnesota; and Yea-Hung Chen of the University of California, San Francisco.

The work was supported by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant 77521), the National Institute on Aging (R01-AG060115, R01-AG060115-04S1, K00-AG068431), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2C-HD041023), the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (P-6007864-2022), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS013853), and the National Science Foundation (CCF-2200052).

See the original post:

Researchers find many 'natural' and COVID-19 deaths likely related | Penn Today - Penn Today

What the CDCs new COVID guidelines could mean for you – Vox.com

February 18, 2024

On February 13, the Washington Post reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plans to issue new guidelines that would substantially pull back on recommendations for people infected with Covid-19.

The guidelines, which are expected to drop in April, will reportedly no longer recommend that most Americans infected with the virus stay away from work and school for five days. Instead, they will advise people that they can leave home if theyve been fever-free for at least 24 hours (without fever-reducing medicine like ibuprofen or acetaminophen) and have mild and improving symptoms. The Posts story didnt mention whether or how the new guidelines would recommend using tests to guide decision-making.

Its a reasonable move, says Aaron Glatt, an infectious disease doctor and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital on Long Island. When youre doing public health, you have to look at what is going to be listened to, and what is doable.

Guidelines that adhere to the highest standards of infection control might please purists in public health who dont have to make policies for the real world. However, guidelines that seem to acknowledge that workers often dont have paid sick leave and emergency child care, and that social interactions are important to folks, are more likely not only to be followed but to engender trust in public health authorities.

Its important to note that the new recommendations will be aimed toward the broader community and the people who live, work, and go to school in it not toward hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities whose residents are both less socially mobile and more vulnerable to the viruss worst effects.

That means the people who are at higher risk of getting severely ill or dying if they get infected people who are older and sicker at baseline will likely be subject to different, more conservative guidelines. Which makes sense, says Glatt: Its not the same approach in a 4-year-old kid as it is in a nursing home. It shouldnt be.

Covid-19 hospitalization rates among adults 65 and over are at least four times what they are in other age groups, and rates are particularly high among adults 75 and over, according to the CDC. In a study published in October, the agency reported that those 65 and older constituted nearly 90 percent of Covid-19 deaths in hospitals.

The older adults getting hospitalized and dying with Covid-19 now are not the otherwise well people with active work and social lives who were getting severely ill earlier in the pandemic, says Shira Doron, an infectious disease doctor and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medicine in Boston. Theyre people with severe underlying illness and compromised immune systems and for many, its not even clear Covid-19 is whats causing their decline. Im really struck by how totally different the Covid inpatient population even the Covid death population that Im seeing is from 2020, or even 2021, she says.

Its hard to tell exactly how many of the worst-affected adults are infected in facilities like hospitals and nursing homes in other words, how many of them would be relatively unaffected by a revised set of guidelines. Its also hard to tell how many older adults, aware of their higher risk, take more measures to protect themselves in public, like wearing masks and gathering outdoors.

However, its worth noting the experiences of states that have already loosened recommendations. Since Oregon loosened its guidelines in May 2023, the state has not seen unusual increases in transmission or severity; California made similar changes in January 2024. In revising their recommendations, state officials hoped to reduce the burdens on workers without sick leave and reduce disruptions on schools and workplaces, according to the Posts reporting.

Doron says the reason loosened isolation guidelines havent led to mayhem in Oregon nor in Europe, where the recommendations changed two years ago is because isolation never did much to reduce transmission to begin with. This has nothing to do with the science of contagiousness and the duration of contagiousness. It has to do with [the fact that] it wasnt working anyway, she says.

Leaning away from what doesnt work to reduce the viruss impact and toward what does work is a smarter way forward, she says.

Isolation guidelines havent been effective for mitigating Covid-19 harms because so many people simply do what they want, regardless of whether theyre sick and they may avoid reporting symptoms to avoid being forced to comply with an isolation policy.

Imagine a workplace or school policy adheres to the current CDC guidelines, which recommend that people who test positive for Covid-19 infection stay home for at least five days. That policy creates a perverse incentive for some people who have symptoms to avoid getting tested, Doron says, because they dont want to miss school, work, or a social event. Because so many people dont have paid sick time, acknowledging even mild symptoms can lead to real financial losses when it means missing a week of work.

At the same time, because these guidelines build testing into their protocols, they lead lots of other people and the federal government to spend money on at-home tests, which are often inaccurate early in infection. Thats a waste of resources that could save more lives if they were instead spent on providing tests to people likeliest to benefit from Paxlovid and getting them treated, says Doron.

For that reason, she thinks that in addition to changing isolation guidelines, the CDC should change the guidelines around testing. You should only be testing when it will change something, and that should be because you need Paxlovid or an antiviral, Doron says. (Clarity and greater focus on who qualifies for Paxlovid would also be helpful, she says current CDC recommendations are too broad.)

The CDCs revised guidelines likely wont be formally released until April at the earliest, and their details are as yet unclear. While theyre recommendations, not requirements, employers and state and local health departments often use them to guide their own policies.

One area where a new set of guidelines could make a big difference is in elevating and normalizing masking, says Jay Varma, an epidemiologist and biotechnology executive with extensive experience in state and federal public health practice. He hopes the new recommendations lean heavily into putting forth masking in public as a matter of routine for people who leave home as soon as they feel well.

CDC should be thinking of this as a decades-long effort to promote cultural acceptance that being in public with a mask is similar to washing your hands, wearing a condom, or smoking outdoors: Its a form of politeness and consideration for others, Varma wrote in an email to Vox.

After all, in the long term, its a lot easier to change social norms around masking than it is to get people used to giving up their social lives for days or weeks at a time.

It would also be helpful for public health officials to encourage people to factor in who gets exposed if they leave isolation soon after a Covid diagnosis, says Glatt. Its hard to build nuance into a one-size-fits-all recommendation, but the guidelines could suggest that, for example, people who have regular social contact with someone they know takes high-dose immunosuppressive medications act differently than people who dont have that kind of contact.

Thats something thats very difficult for a guideline to take into account, he acknowledges.

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Read the original post:

What the CDCs new COVID guidelines could mean for you - Vox.com

Italy announces inquiry into its handling of Covid-19 pandemic – The Guardian

February 18, 2024

Italy

Victims relatives hail creation of commission but ex-ministers say it will be used as political attack

Thu 15 Feb 2024 08.11 EST

Italy will carry out an inquiry into its handling of the coronavirus pandemic in a move hailed as a great victory by the relatives of people killed by the virus but criticised by those who were in power at the time.

Italy was the first western country to report an outbreak and has the second highest Covid-related death toll to date in Europe, at more than 196,000. Only the UKs death toll is higher.

The creation of a commission to examine the governments actions and the measures adopted by it to prevent and address the Covid-19 epidemiological emergency was approved by the lower house of parliament after passing in the senate.

A Covid-19 inquiry was among the election campaign pledges of the prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, whose far-right government came to power in October 2022.

Victims families had protested against an inquiry proposal by the previous administration, a vast coalition led by Mario Draghi, after attempts were made by the centre-left Democratic party (PD) and the League, which governs the worst-hit Lombardy region, to narrow its scope by focusing only on the outbreak in China and introducing a cutoff date of 31 January 2020, therefore not examining the scramble by the Italian government to contain rapidly rising infections and deaths in the weeks that followed.

Consuelo Locati, a lawyer representing hundreds of families who brought legal proceedings against former leaders, said: The families were the first to ask for a commission and so for us this is a great victory. The commission is important because it has the task, at least on paper, to analyse what went wrong and the errors committed so as not to repeat the massacre we all suffered.

The commission will investigate the actions of individuals including Giuseppe Conte, the former prime minister, Roberto Speranza, the former health minister, and Attilio Fontana, the president of Lombardy.

Conte, who now leads the Five Star Movement, which at the time was in government with the PD, accused Melonis government of cowardice and of creating an abnormal tool to politically attack its predecessors. But you will not govern for life and this could prove to be a dangerous precedent, he said, adding that he had nothing to hide.

Speranza claimed the objective of the commission was not to make the healthcare system more resilient but to vilify the former government.

In June last year, prosecutors in Bergamo, the Lombardy province heavily hit by Covid-19 at the start of the pandemic, shelved an investigation into Conte and Speranzas management of the emergency after they found no evidence connecting the deaths to their failure to swiftly adopt measures to contain the escalating virus.

Italys first coronavirus case was confirmed in Codogno in southern Lombardy on 21 February 2020. Two days later, an outbreak occurred at the hospital in Alzano Lombardo, a town in Bergamo. However, unlike Codogno, where quarantine measures were implemented immediately along with nine other towns in Lombardy and one in Veneto, Bergamo went into lockdown with the entire Lombardy region two weeks later.

A case brought by relatives of the deceased at Romes civil court is ongoing. The court is examining the same evidence that Bergamo prosecutors did, including the alleged absence of an updated national pandemic plan. The difference with the Rome case is that there will definitely be a sentence, which will either go in our favour or not, said Locati, whose father was among those to die early in the pandemic.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

One-timeMonthlyAnnual

Other

View post:

Italy announces inquiry into its handling of Covid-19 pandemic - The Guardian

Page 66«..1020..65666768..8090..»