Category: Covid-19

Japan overtook Hong Kong for expected lifespans of both men and women for the first time since 2011, recording 81.1 years for men and 87.1 for women in 2022.

Government data released earlier this month showed that Hong Kongs standardised death rate, which is the number of deaths per 1,000 people, rose from 6.9 in 2021 to 8.4 in 2022 after being on a downward trend for three decades.

Gietel-Basten said the change was because of the deaths during the peak of the pandemic in 2022.

The city recorded 63,692 deaths that year, a 24 per cent increase from 51,354 in 2021.

With the world gradually returning to normality in 2023 and Covid-related deaths largely reduced, Gietel-Basten expected the citys mortality rate to return to its previous downward trend.

Hong Kong has so far recorded more than 14,000 Covid-related deaths, with more than 90 per cent occurring during the fifth wave of Covid-19 infections in 2022. Most of those who died were people aged 65 or older.

The Census and Statistics Department, which released the data, said in its report that the mortality rates for a number of age groups of both sexes were higher in 2022 than 2021 amid the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Will Covid-19s death toll drop Hong Kongs life expectancy?

Elderly people saw a more significant increase, with the rate among men aged at least 85 years old rising from 109 per 1,000 people in 2021 to 143.5. The rate for women in the same age group rose from 85.4 to 109.

Gietel-Basten cautioned against reading too much into the data by comparing life expectancies of different years, especially with the occurrence of an unusual event such as the pandemic.

Its not the case that in 2022, all of a sudden, peoples lives got shorter its just the case that there were more deaths, primarily at older ages, which is going to skew the life expectancy, he said.

We shouldnt overemphasise or misinterpret it to say everybody is going to live two years less, he said.

Professor Paul Yip Siu-fai, chair of population health at the University of Hong Kong, said the higher mortality rates among elderly people in 2022 contributed to the drop in life expectancy.

If there wasnt Covid-19, the life expectancy of Hongkongers would still be increasing, he said.

From 1991 to 2021, the expected lifespan for Hong Kong men increased by eight years, from 75.2 to 83.2 years. Women had more than seven years added to their lifespan, rising from 80.7 to 87.9 years.

But Yip said instead of looking at life expectancy only, people should also pay attention to healthy life expectancy, meaning the number of years a person can expect to remain in good health, unhindered by disabling illness or injury.

Hong Kong is tops for longevity, but experts flag health problems ahead

He said healthy life expectancy was a more important measure of improvement in public health.

It can better indicate our quality of life, he said. But healthy life expectancy in Hong Kong did not proportionately increase.

Even as people lived longer in the city, he said, many might also suffer from illness and disability for a long time before death, adding to the burden on the healthcare system.

A study released by Chinese University last November showed that between 2007 and 2020, the lifespan of Hong Kong men rose by about 43 months while women were living about 25 months longer, but the healthy life expectancy increased by only 20 months for men and one month for women.

See more here:

Population experts shrug off Hong Kong losing top spot in life expectancy - South China Morning Post

COVID-19 cases dropping in Wisconsin, but other respiratory and GI infections on the rise

A negative COVID-19 rapid test. (WLUK/Scott Hurley)

GREEN BAY (WLUK) -- Coughs, colds, the flu -- this is the season of sickness.

Although%20COVID-19%20cases%20are%20dropping%20in%20Wisconsin,%20health%20officials%20say%20other%20respiratory%20and%20GI%20infections%20are%20on%20the%20rise.%20(WLUK)

At that time, more than 500 people across the state were hospitalized with COVID-19. But according to state statistics, that number has dropped more than 50% in the last month.

"I think we are clearly noticing a decrease in the number of people who get COVID-19. At the same time though, in today's environment, COVID is maybe about a quarter to a third of the story when it comes to seasonal respiratory infections," said Dr. Brad Burmeister with Bellin Health.

As Dr. Burmeister alluded to, health care officials are seeing an increase in other viruses.

"It seems to be, perhaps, a quarter COVID-19, a quarter RSV, a quarter other respiratory viruses and then a quarter of people seem to be getting knocked down with norovirus or other gastrointestinal illnesses right now," he said.

Dr. Burmeister said, like the number of COVID cases, it appears there's been a plateau in RSV cases too. However, he explained norovirus and other gastrointestinal illnesses appear to be rising.

To stay healthy and stop the spread of illnesses, Dr. Burmeister recommends people practice a lot of handwashing and stay home and away from others if they're sick.

According to health care professionals, it's not too late to get your vaccines -- whether for COVID, the flu or any other viruses.

Load more...

Go here to read the rest:

COVID-19 cases dropping in Wisconsin, but other respiratory and GI infections on the rise - Fox11online.com

One of the best tools for preventing severe complications from COVID infection is the prescription antiviral drug Paxlovid. But not nearly as many people who could benefit from it are being prescribed it, says Amesh Adalja, MD, FIDSA, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security who specializes in infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness. Adalja says that both patients and providers need to be better informed about the benefits of Paxlovid and other antivirals like it.

Paxlovid is extremely effective when taken within five days of symptom onset. In clinical trials, it reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90% in unvaccinated people. Its a tremendous tool that's completely underutilized, says Adalja.

Paxlovid is a class of antiviral drug called a protease inhibitor, explains Adalja. It prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19 infection, from replicating in the body. At a molecular level, Paxlovid works by disrupting the protein cutting process of SARS-CoV-2, he explains. It blocks an essential step in the viruss life cycle.

Paxlovid is designed to benefit people at high risk of severe illness who are at least 12 years old and weigh at least 88 pounds. Its purpose is to prevent hospitalization and death, not to decrease symptoms or to help you recover faster, although patients who take it may experience one or both of those benefits.

According to the CDC, people are more likely to experience severe COVID-19 illness if they are over 50 years old, unvaccinated or not up to date on COVID-19 vaccination, immunocompromised, or have certain medical conditions.

Any medical condition such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, any lung condition like asthma or COPD, would be considered high risk, says Adalja. Other common risk factors include being overweight, obese, or pregnant. The majority of Americans probably have some high risk factor, he says. A lot of people would benefit from Paxlovid just based on their weight status.

Antiviral prescribing is underutilized in the United States, Adalja says. There are many people with high risk conditions who are not being prescribed Paxlovid [or] an alternative antiviral like molnupiravir.

This may be due to misconceptions, including by physicians, about who should take Paxlovid. Some might say, we're gonna wait, you don't look that bad, which is a complete misunderstanding of how the drug works, says Adalja. Paxlovid is designed to be given early on to prevent symptoms from becoming more severe. The decision to prescribe someone Paxlovid for a COVID infection should be made based on a patients risk factors for severe disease, regardless of symptom severity.

The same problem exists with antivirals for influenza. Many high-risk people do not get prescribed an influenza antiviral despite evidence that they benefit, says Adalja. Doctors may be more comfortable prescribing Tamiflu because theyre more familiar with it, but Tamiflu is also underutilized.

One reason not enough people know about Paxlovid is that it was under emergency use authorization for quite a while, which prohibited Pfizer from advertising the drug. Instead, they relied on doctors to bring it up. Starting in 2023, Pfizer began promoting Paxlovid to consumers through social media ads and commercials. People complain about direct-to-patient advertising, but it works, says Adalja. When patients know a drug by name, theyre more likely to ask their doctor about it.

Its important that patients feel empowered to ask their health care providers about any and all treatment options, he says. Patients should be asking their doctors, Would I benefit from Paxlovid? Would I benefit from Tamiflu? Do I really need this antibiotic?

Currently there are two other treatments to prevent hospitalization from COVID: Molnupiravir, which is another oral antiviral taken at home, and remdesivir, which is a three-day daily IV infusion given in a health care facility.

Molnupiravir is a good alternative for individuals taking medications that may interact with Paxlovid, says Adalja.

Its always a risk-benefit ratio, says Adalja. If you don't have risk factors for severe disease and you take Paxlovid, you may experience the side effectsan altered sense of taste, possible gastrointestinal upset, and possible rebound symptomswithout the benefits the medication is designed to provide.

While some early studies signaled that Paxlovid might reduce a persons chance of developing long COVID, more recent research indicates that it does not. This includes a study published in January 2024 that found no connection between Paxlovid treatment and long COVID symptoms in vaccinated, non-hospitalized individuals.

There are newer antivirals not yet available in the U.S. that have a stronger signal for preventing long COVID, says Adalja.

No. [Rebound] doesnt happen to everyonestudies show maybe 1 in 5 people who take Paxlovid experience rebound symptoms, says Adalja. But even those who do get reboundwith or without taking Paxlovid dont do badly. For people who take Paxlovid and experience rebound, symptoms are generally mild to moderate and they do not require hospitalization.

COVID rebound was really made out to be a bigger and more common issue than it is, due to news stories about people like President Biden experiencing it, he explains. The risk of reboundwhether or not it can be definitively linked to Paxlovidshouldn't preclude someone who's high risk from taking Paxlovid, and it definitely shouldnt preclude doctors from prescribing it.

*COVID rebound is the return of symptoms after someone initially recovers from COVID. The order of events generally looks like this: A person is infected with COVID and feels symptomatic; their symptoms subside over the course of the infection; they may even test negative for COVID on a home antigen test; a few days later, their symptoms return, and they may test positive again on a home antigen test.

Through the end of 2023, Paxlovid was free for Americans, with the costs covered by the federal government. An agreement between Pfizer and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will ensure Paxlovid remains free through the end of 2024 for patients who are insured through Medicare and Medicaid or uninsured. It will continue to be free through 2028 for individuals who are uninsured and underinsured. Paxlovid is covered by many private insurance plans (costs vary by plan).

If you test positive for COVID, talk to your doctor as soon as possible about any factors that put you at greater risk for severe illness and whether you would benefit from taking Paxlovid.

If you dont have a health care provider, the nationwide Test to Treat program helps people access low- or no-cost treatments quickly. Anyone who tests positive for COVID (or flu) can also access free telehealth care and treatment through the Home Test to Treat program.

Aliza Rosen is a digital content strategist in the Office of External Affairs at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Read the original here:

Why More People Should be Prescribed Paxlovid for COVID | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health - Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public...

End of peak respiratory illness season brings relief amid high flu, COVID-19 cases

by Lee Stoll, KOMO News Reporter

FILE - A doctor gives a patient the COVID-19 booster shot. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON

The end of January is almost here, which could be good news for your health.

Respiratory illnesses usually spike in the first month of the year marked by an increase in coughs, nasal congestion, fatigue, and fever.

This year, a new COVID-19 variant is making the season even more sufferable.

"This year we're seeing very high cases of many respiratory viruses. And when I say respiratory viruses Im talking about influenza, RSV, and COVID-19," said Dr. Robert A. Pitts with NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 is the leading cause of hospital admissions among respiratory viruses. But the numbers are improving.

37 states started the month with high or very high levels of illness. That's down to just 7.

Activity is low in Washington, but hospital admissions are up about 7.5% across Puget Sound.

"It's never too late to get vaccinated. So, for all of my patients that I take care of and the providers that I work with at my local hospital, I'm recommending on a daily basis for them to vaccinate or to offer vaccination for influenza, as well as for COVID-19," said Pitts.

The good news is a study from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine shows this season's flu shot is a good match for fighting the dominant strain, reducing the risk of a hospital stay by 52%.

Load more...

View post:

End of peak respiratory illness season brings relief amid high flu, COVID-19 cases - KATU

Jeremy Faust is editor-in-chief of , an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and a public health researcher. He is author of the Substack column Inside Medicine. Follow

California has a new COVID-19 isolation guideline that differs from the CDC's. Under its new policy, California residents with confirmed COVID-19 can end their isolation once they have not had a fever (without fever-reducing medication) for 24 hours and other symptoms are improving. In addition, asymptomatic patients do not need to isolate at all. Masking for 10 days is deemed sufficient.

Many of you have been asking me about this. Including The Boston Globe. First, I'll share my quotes from an article on this in the Globe earlier this week. Then we'll go deeper.

What Didn't Make It Into the Globe (and the Headline Nobody Is Picking Up On...)

I had more to say to the Globe's health journalist Adam Piore, but not everything can fit into the paper. So, here are some further thoughts I have that we touched on during our conversation earlier this week:

More on harm reduction. People who are truly asymptomatic are probably less contagious, but they still may be contagious at times. People who no longer have a fever are less contagious than those with fever; but they still may be contagious. Yes, something is better than nothing; I am just not sure where they got this particular "something."

To be fair, the California guidance is all based on true things. The question is whether this policy effectively decreases spread or not. It might -- and if the scientists have modeling for this, I'd love to see the results. But I'm worried that any modeling they performed may have badly misunderstood the distinction between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases, and the unique implications that these situations carry.

Why you tested matters. It's one thing if you get a positive test after a couple days of symptoms. In that context, California's guidance is based on data that show that decreasing viral loads often (but not always) correlate to reductions in symptoms. But if you tested positive because your roommate has COVID-19 and you're worried you might have caught it from them, this guidance misses the mark and potentially lets you become a superspreader. For example, if you test positive a couple days after an exposure but do not have symptoms, you don't know when your viral load will start going exponential (the time when you're at highest risk of spreading the virus) and whether symptoms will appear just before, during, after that phase, or never.

Context matters. Some degree of spread of COVID-19 on a college campus is a lot more tolerable than some degree of spread in healthcare facilities like nursing homes or acute rehab facilities where your dad goes after that hip replacement. Which leads to...

This next one should have been a headline. (In fairness, I hadn't fully noticed this myself when I spoke to the Globe.) The California guidance actually implies, but does not explicitly state, that many or most healthcare workers should not go to work for 10 days after a positive COVID-19 test. It says, "Avoid contact with those who are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 for 10 days." To me, that says that healthcare workers should not see many of their patients during that time. I wholeheartedly agree.

If there is any thing we 100% must be doing, it is preventing the spread of this virus to the highest-risk individuals. Healthcare workers and others who work closely with high-risk populations need to get paid sick leave to cover their contagious windows (ideally, as determined by two negative rapid antigen tests, taken a day apart). If California were to enforce this part of its guidance (will they?) I would actually be far more willing to accept the rest of the guidance's gambles. But I doubt they will, nor is it feasible given the lack of financial support to (and therefore by) healthcare institutions at this point in the pandemic.

Concluding Thoughts

Look around. Everywhere you go, people are not doing much to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It's year five of the pandemic and deaths and hospitalizations are a lot lower. I get it. Still, I wish people would mask in some situations. (Like, why not mask in super crowded spaces where nobody is talking anyway?) But it is not happening on a large scale. Nor are most people abiding by the CDC's isolation guidelines at this point.

So, we want to find a way to maximally reduce spread -- especially to key populations -- with minimal disruption. The fever rule may help; but it could backfire if too many afebrile people now go out and spread this thing. The asymptomatic rule may turn out to be not too hazardous (though, again, I worry about the pre-symptomatics); but really, I hope infected asymptomatic people who choose not to isolate will wear N95 masks when they go out. (And for concerned readers: one-way N95 masking drastically reduces your chances of getting COVID-19.)

More than that, though, that California (and Oregon) are going rogue from the CDC's guidelines reflects something larger: Times have changed, and so should the guidelines. Yes, harm reduction is indeed a better strategy than making unrealistic requests; I get that this informed California policymakers' choices when they drew up this new protocol. But could we see the science, please?

This piece originally appeared in Faust's newsletter, Inside Medicine.

Continue reading here:

Opinion | The Real COVID Isolation Headline That Nobody Is Picking Up On - Medpage Today

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced this week that nearly 86 percent of new COVID-19 cases are the result of this latest mutation, known as JN.1. This makes it the most widely-circulating version of the virus not just in the U.S., but circulating in the world.

The virus continues to evolve so rapidly that our immune systems have not been able to keep up, says one expert.

It is basically the newest mutant variation of Omicron. The World Health Organization first reported it in August 2023, but it wasnt multiplying very fast. The weather changed, the Northern Hemisphere is in winter cold, people are inside, and the number of cases is growing rapidly.

In mid-October, the CDC reported that the JN.1 mutation was only about 0.1 percent of all COVID-19 cases around the country. But by their latest update on Jan. 20, the CDC estimates thats now up to approximately 86 percent.

The variants symptoms look like a lot of other respiratory viruses now circulating, but it is evolving so rapidly that our immune systems cant keep up.

Most likely, if youre getting COVID right now, youre getting this particular variant mutation, said San Diego State University School of Public Health Director and Professor of Epidemiology Eyal Oren, speaking with National Public Radio this week.

Image courtesy of NBC News.

COVD-19 vaccination rates havent kept up, making the viral spread of this variant even worse. The rates are concerning:

Demographic COVID-19 vaccination rate

Children 11 percent

Adults 21 percent

Adults 65+ 40 percent

It should be noted that adults 65+ are the highest risk group for the virus.

Not only are the rates for COVD-19 vaccinations low, but so are vaccination rates for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This has caused the CDC to issue an alert to healthcare workers about the combination of rising flu, RSV and COVID cases. This could lead to more severe disease and increased healthcare capacity strain in the coming weeks, predicted the agency.

Originally posted here:

JN.1 is the latest COVID-19 Variant, and its Spreading Like Crazy - by Jan Wondra - The Ark Valley Voice

WASHINGTON (AP) When IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel met privately with senators recently, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee asked for his assessment of a startling report: A whistleblower estimated that 95% of claims now being made by businesses for a COVID-era tax break were fraudulent.

He looked at his shoes and he basically said, Yeah, recalled the lawmaker who posed that question, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

The answer explains why Congress is racing to wind down what is known as the employee retention tax credit. Congress established the program during the coronavirus pandemic as an incentive for businesses to keep workers on the payroll.

Demand for the credit soared as Congress extended the tax break and made it available to more companies. Aggressive marketers dangled the prospect of enormous refunds to business owners if they would just apply. As a result, what was expected to cost the federal government $55 billion has instead ballooned to nearly five times that amount as of July. Meanwhile, new claims are still pouring into the IRS each week, ensuring a growing price tag that lawmakers are anxious to cap.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum who rarely agree on little else from liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. agree it's time to close down the program.

I dont have the exact number, but its like almost universal fraud in the program. It should be ended, Johnson said. I dont see how anybody could support it.

Warren added: The standards were too loose and the oversight was too thin."

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that winding down the program more quickly and increasing penalties for those companies promoting improper claims would generate about $79 billion over 10 years.

Lawmakers aim to use the savings to offset the cost of three business tax breaks and a more generous child tax credit for many low-income families. Households benefiting from the changes in the child tax credit would see an average tax cut of $680 in the first year, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That tax credit is $2,000 per child, but only $1,600 is refundable, which makes it available to parents who owe little to nothing in federal income taxes. An agreement reached earlier this month by congressional tax-writers would increase the maximum refundable child tax credit to $1,800 for 2023 tax returns, $1,900 for the following year and $2,000 for 2025 tax returns. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank and advocacy group, projected that about 16 million children in low-income families would benefit from the child tax credit expansion.

The package was overwhelmingly approved by a House committee last week, 40-3, showing it has broad, bipartisan support.

But passage through Congress is not assured because many key senators have concerns about aspects of the bill. Wyden said a strong vote in the House could spur the Senate into quicker action. Still, passing major legislation in an election year is generally a heavy lift.

Under current law, taxpayers have until April 15, 2025, to claim the employee retention credit. The bill would bars new claims after Jan. 31 of this year. It also would impose stiff penalties on those who are promoting the employer retention tax credit if they know or have reason to know their advice will lead to an underreporting of tax liabilities.

When Congress created the tax break for employers at the pandemics onset, it proved so popular that lawmakers extended and amended the program three times. The credit, worth up to $26,000 per employee, can be claimed on wages paid through 2021.

To qualify, generally businesses must show that a local or state government order related to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in their business having to close or partially suspend operations. Or the businesses must show they experienced a significant decline in revenues.

Larry Gray, a certified public accountant from Rolla, Missouri, said he had concerns early on about how the program could be abused.

There was no documentation really to speak" and the IRS just sent out the checks, Gray said. They just started printing the checks and I believe Congress was wanting them to print the checks.

His hunch has proven correct, judging by the filings that he has reviewed. He has even lost clients who didnt want to hear that they did not qualify when others were telling them they did. Generally, he said, the businesses that dont qualify are failing to cite the government order that resulted in their closure or partial suspension. They are also routinely citing reasons for reimbursement that dont meet the programs criteria. For example, one company said it was struggling to find employees and had to raise wages as a justification for qualifying.

If I go through the narratives on the filings that Im looking at, every business in America qualifies, Gray said.

The IRS paused accepting claims for the tax credit in September last year, until 2024 due to rising concerns that an influx of applications are fraudulent. At that point, it had received 3.6 million claims.

Some fraud has been prolific. For instance, a New Jersey tax preparer was arrested in July on charges related to fraudulently seeking over $124 million from the IRS when he filed more than 1,000 tax returns claiming the employment tax credits.

In an update issued Thursday about the program, the IRS said that it has thousands of audit in the pipeline and that as of Dec. 31, it has initiated 352 criminal investigations involving more than $2.9 billion in potentially fraudulent claims. Separately, it has opened nine civil investigations of marketers that potentially misled employers on eligibility to file claims.

Werfel briefed the Senate Finance Committee recently on the measures that have been put into place to address the fraud, including developing a special withdrawal program for those with unprocessed claims and a voluntary disclosure program for those who believed they were improperly paid. Since then, the IRS has seen an immediate 40% decline in average weekly claims, he said.

Lawmakers emphasize that cutting down on the fraudulent claims should also help the IRS more quickly resolve the legitimate claims that businesses have filed and are still awaiting resolution. In early December, the IRS had a backlog of about 1 million claims.

Congress routinely has difficulty finding offsets to pay for new spending or tax cuts. But in this case, the employee retention tax credit appears to have few friends left on Capitol Hill.

Well-intentioned, but boy oh boy, said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., in summing up the program.

Follow this link:

A COVID-era program is awash in fraud. Congress aims to wind it down and expand the child tax credit - Yahoo News

The Library of Congress and StoryCorps announced this week that they have created a website for people to record for posterity their experiences with the covid-19 pandemic.

Stories or interviews with others who were touched by the pandemic can be recorded online. They will be preserved in the librarys American Folklife Center and made accessible at archive.StoryCorps.org.

Our goal for the COVID-19 Archive Activation page is to honor those who experienced this tumultuous moment in our nations history, commemorate those who were lost ... and to educate future generations about what life was like during the pandemic, Nicole Saylor, director of the American Folklife Center, said in a statement.

We are particularly interested in doing this work through peoples stories, as storytelling is a crucial medium of communication, she said.

Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden said in the statement: Recording the voices and stories of Americans experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic for our national collections will ... ensure these stories will not be forgotten.

Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, more than 1 million Americans have lost their lives and 6 million have been hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Variants of the disease continue to sicken people, although effective vaccines have reduced serious illness.

In 2021, the library acquired a collection of audio diaries from more than 200 health-care workers compiled by the Nocturnists, a San Francisco-based independent medical storytelling community and podcast.

And it has gathered an array of covid-related artifacts, including art, data, photographs and posters to illustrate the impact of the disease.

Our goal is that, centuries from now, people looking through these online archives will know that, amidst the darkness of the global pandemic, America discovered its strength in unity, resilience, and innovation, library spokeswoman Maria Pea said in an email.

Read the original:

The Library of Congress has created a portal to record Covid stories. - The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- When IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel met privately with senators recently, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee asked for his assessment of a startling report: A whistleblower estimated that 95% of claims now being made by businesses for a COVID-era tax break were fraudulent.

He looked at his shoes and he basically said, Yeah, recalled the lawmaker who posed that question, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

The answer explains why Congress is racing to wind down what is known as the employee retention tax credit. Congress established the program during the coronavirus pandemic as an incentive for businesses to keep workers on the payroll.

Demand for the credit soared as Congress extended the tax break and made it available to more companies. Aggressive marketers dangled the prospect of enormous refunds to business owners if they would just apply. As a result, what was expected to cost the federal government $55 billion has instead ballooned to nearly five times that amount as of July. Meanwhile, new claims are still pouring into the IRS each week, ensuring a growing price tag that lawmakers are anxious to cap.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum who rarely agree on little else from liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. agree it's time to close down the program.

I dont have the exact number, but its like almost universal fraud in the program. It should be ended, Johnson said. I dont see how anybody could support it.

Warren added: The standards were too loose and the oversight was too thin."

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that winding down the program more quickly and increasing penalties for those companies promoting improper claims would generate about $79 billion over 10 years.

Lawmakers aim to use the savings to offset the cost of three business tax breaks and a more generous child tax credit for many low-income families. Households benefiting from the changes in the child tax credit would see an average tax cut of $680 in the first year, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That tax credit is $2,000 per child, but only $1,600 is refundable, which makes it available to parents who owe little to nothing in federal income taxes. An agreement reached earlier this month by congressional tax-writers would increase the maximum refundable child tax credit to $1,800 for 2023 tax returns, $1,900 for the following year and $2,000 for 2025 tax returns. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank and advocacy group, projected that about 16 million children in low-income families would benefit from the child tax credit expansion.

The package was overwhelmingly approved by a House committee last week, 40-3, showing it has broad, bipartisan support.

But passage through Congress is not assured because many key senators have concerns about aspects of the bill. Wyden said a strong vote in the House could spur the Senate into quicker action. Still, passing major legislation in an election year is generally a heavy lift.

Under current law, taxpayers have until April 15, 2025, to claim the employee retention credit. The bill would bars new claims after Jan. 31 of this year. It also would impose stiff penalties on those who are promoting the employer retention tax credit if they know or have reason to know their advice will lead to an underreporting of tax liabilities.

When Congress created the tax break for employers at the pandemics onset, it proved so popular that lawmakers extended and amended the program three times. The credit, worth up to $26,000 per employee, can be claimed on wages paid through 2021.

To qualify, generally businesses must show that a local or state government order related to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in their business having to close or partially suspend operations. Or the businesses must show they experienced a significant decline in revenues.

Larry Gray, a certified public accountant from Rolla, Missouri, said he had concerns early on about how the program could be abused.

There was no documentation really to speak" and the IRS just sent out the checks, Gray said. They just started printing the checks and I believe Congress was wanting them to print the checks.

His hunch has proven correct, judging by the filings that he has reviewed. He has even lost clients who didnt want to hear that they did not qualify when others were telling them they did. Generally, he said, the businesses that dont qualify are failing to cite the government order that resulted in their closure or partial suspension. They are also routinely citing reasons for reimbursement that dont meet the programs criteria. For example, one company said it was struggling to find employees and had to raise wages as a justification for qualifying.

If I go through the narratives on the filings that Im looking at, every business in America qualifies, Gray said.

The IRS paused accepting claims for the tax credit in September last year, until 2024 due to rising concerns that an influx of applications are fraudulent. At that point, it had received 3.6 million claims.

Some fraud has been prolific. For instance, a New Jersey tax preparer was arrested in July on charges related to fraudulently seeking over $124 million from the IRS when he filed more than 1,000 tax returns claiming the employment tax credits.

In an update issued Thursday about the program, the IRS said that it has thousands of audit in the pipeline and that as of Dec. 31, it has initiated 352 criminal investigations involving more than $2.9 billion in potentially fraudulent claims. Separately, it has opened nine civil investigations of marketers that potentially misled employers on eligibility to file claims.

Werfel briefed the Senate Finance Committee recently on the measures that have been put into place to address the fraud, including developing a special withdrawal program for those with unprocessed claims and a voluntary disclosure program for those who believed they were improperly paid. Since then, the IRS has seen an immediate 40% decline in average weekly claims, he said.

Lawmakers emphasize that cutting down on the fraudulent claims should also help the IRS more quickly resolve the legitimate claims that businesses have filed and are still awaiting resolution. In early December, the IRS had a backlog of about 1 million claims.

Congress routinely has difficulty finding offsets to pay for new spending or tax cuts. But in this case, the employee retention tax credit appears to have few friends left on Capitol Hill.

Well-intentioned, but boy oh boy, said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., in summing up the program.

Here is the original post:

A COVID-era program is awash in fraud. Congress aims to wind it down and expand the child tax credit - ABC News

Unvaccinated pregnant people who contracted COVID-19 were more likely to have babies who suffered from respiratory distress, a new study published this week found.

A team of researchers led by the University of California, Los Angeles, looked at 221 pregnant people for the study, including 151 who were unvaccinated before they were infected with COVID, which was confirmed with a laboratory test.

All of the 151 unvaccinated pregnant people met the National Institutes of Health criteria for severe or critical COVID-19 whereas only 4% of the 70 vaccinated pregnant people met the criteria.

MORE: Pregnant people have higher risk of breakthrough COVID-19, data shows

Researchers were able to examine 199 babies, all of whom were born between April 2020 and August 2022, and none of whom tested positive for the virus. The remaining 28 fetuses either resulted in a miscarriage, abortion or fetal demise, or could not be followed up with.

The team found that being exposed to COVID-19 in utero "may activate an inflammatory cascade" in the airways of newborns, resulting in respiratory distress. One of the main pathways appear to be associated with the function of cilia, the tiny, hair-like structures found on the surface of cells that typically help push germs, mucus and other particles towards the mouth so they can be coughed or sneezed out.

Results, published in the journal Nature Communications, found the odds of respiratory distress were up to three times greater in babies born in those who were unvaccinated versus those who were vaccinated.

"We found unusually high rates of respiratory distress shortly after birth in the full-term babies born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy," Dr. Karin Nielsen, a professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a statement. "The mothers had not been vaccinated prior to acquiring COVID, indicating that vaccination protects against this complication."

Further research is needed to determine if COVID-19 still impacts respiratory distress when accounting for other factors that lead to respiratory distress syndrome

Respiratory distress in infants is defined as difficulty breathing or working harder to breathe within the first 24 hours. Signs can include wheezing, sweating, changes in breathing rate or color changes around the lips or mouth, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Research has shown that pregnant people with COVID-19 are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill leading to hospitalization, intensive care, the use of a ventilator or even death. COVID-19 during pregnancy also raises the risk of a premature or stillborn baby.

MORE: CDC strengthens recommendation that pregnant women get vaccinated

"Our results demonstrate that maternal vaccination against COVID-19 not only protects against maternal disease severity, but also reduces the likelihood of neonatal [respiratory distress]," the authors wrote.

The study had several limitations, such as a small and homogenous sample size and a wide estimate range, which impacted generalizability. More research is needed to validate these findings.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends that all pregnant people get vaccinated against COVID-19 and that studies have shown there are no safety concerns for babies born to those who have been vaccinated.

Babies born to unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 may be at greater risk of respiratory distress: Study originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Follow this link:

Babies born to unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 may be at greater risk of respiratory distress: Study - Yahoo! Voices