Category: Covid-19

Three quarters of adults now have a bank or mobile money account; gender gap in account ownership narrows

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2022The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred financial inclusion driving a large increase in digital payments amid the global expansion of formal financial services. This expansion created new economic opportunities, narrowing the gender gap in account ownership, and building resilience at the household level to better manage financial shocks, according to theGlobal Findex 2021 database.

As of 2021, 76% of adults globally now have an account at a bank, other financial institution, or with a mobile money provider, up from 68% in 2017 and 51% in 2011. Importantly, growth in account ownership was evenly distributed across many more countries. While in previous Findex surveys over the last decade much of the growth was concentrated in India and China, this years survey found that the percentage of account ownership increased by double digits in 34 countries since 2017.

The pandemic has also led to an increased use of digital payments. In low and middle-income economies (excluding China), over 40% of adults who made merchant in-store or online payments using a card, phone, or the internet did so for the first time since the start of the pandemic. The same was true for more than a third of adults in all low- and middle-income economies who paid a utility bill directly from a formal account. In India, more than 80 million adults made their first digital merchant payment after the start of the pandemic, while in China over 100 million adults did.

Two-thirds of adults worldwide now make or receive a digital payment, with the share in developing economies grew from 35% in 2014 to 57% in 2021. In developing economies, 71% have an account at a bank, other financial institution, or with a mobile money provider, up from 63% in 2017 and 42% in 2011. Mobile money accounts drove a huge increase in financial inclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The digital revolution has catalyzed increases in the access and use of financial services across the world, transforming ways in which people make and receive payments, borrow, and save,saidWorld Bank Group President David Malpass.Creating an enabling policy environment, promoting the digitalization of payments, and further broadening access to formal accounts and financial services among women and the poor are some of the policy priorities to mitigate the reversals in development from the ongoing overlapping crises.

For the first time since the Global Findex database was started in 2011, the survey found that the gender gap in account ownership has narrowed, helping women have more privacy, security, and control over their money. The gap narrowed from 7 to 4 percentage points globally and from 9 to 6 percentage points in low- and middle-income countries, since the last survey round in 2017.

About 36% of adults in developing economies now receive a wage or government payment, a payment for the sale of agricultural products, or a domestic remittance payment into an account. The data suggests that receiving a payment into an account instead of cash can kickstart peoples use of the formal financial system when people receive digital payments, 83% used their accounts to also make digital payments. Almost two-thirds used their account for cash management, while about 40% used it to save further growing the financial ecosystem.

Despite the advances, many adults around the world still lack a reliable source of emergency money. Only about half of adults in low- and middle-income economies said they could access extra money during an emergency with little or no difficulty, and they commonly turn to unreliable sources of finance, including family and friends.

The world has a crucial opportunity to build a more inclusive and resilient economy and provide a gateway to prosperity for billions of people,saidBill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the supporters of the Global Findex database.By investing in digital public infrastructure and technologies for payment and ID systems and updating regulations to foster innovation and protect consumers, governments can build on the progress reported in the Findex and expand access to financial services for all who need them.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the lack of an identity document remains an important barrier holding back mobile money account ownership for 30% of adults with no account suggesting an opportunity for investing in accessible and trusted identification systems. Over 80 million adults with no account still receive government payments in cash digitalizing some of these payments could be cheaper and reduce corruption. Increasing account ownership and usage will require trust in financial service providers, confidence to use financial products, tailored product design, and a strong and enforced consumer protection framework.

The Global Findex database, which surveyed how people in 123 economies use financial services throughout 2021, is produced by the World Bank every three years in collaboration with Gallup, Inc.

Regional Overviews:

EAP

InEast Asia and the Pacific, financial inclusion is a two-part story of what is happening in China versus the other economies of the region. In China, 89% of adults have an account, and 82% of adults used it to make digital merchant payments. In the rest of the region, 59% of adults have an account and 23% of adults made digital merchant payments54% of which did so for the first time after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Double-digit increases in account ownership were achieved in Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand, while the gender gap across the region remains low, at 3 percentage points, but the gap between poor and rich adults is 10 percentage points.

ECA

InEurope and Central Asia, account ownership increased by 13 percentage points since 2017 to reach 78% of adults. Digital payments usage is robust, as about three-quarters of adults used an account to make or receive a digital payment. COVID-19 drove further usage for the 10% of adults who made a digital merchant payment for the first time during the pandemic. Digital technology could further increase account use for the 80 million banked adults that continued to make merchant payments only in cash, including 20 million banked adults in Russia and 19 million banked adults in Trkiye, the regions two largest economies.

LAC

Latin America and the Caribbeansaw an 18 percentage -point increase in account ownership since 2017, the largest of any developing world region, resulting in 73% of adults having an account. Digital payments play a key role, as 40% of adults paid a merchant digitally, including 14% of adults who did so for the first time during the pandemic. COVID-19 furthermore drove digital adoption for the 15% of adults who made their first utility bill payment directly from their account for the first time during the pandemicmore than twice the developing country average. Opportunities for even greater use of digital payments remain given that 150 million banked adults made merchant payments only in cash, including more than 50 million banked adults in Brazil and 16 million banked adults in Colombia.

MENA

TheMiddle East and North Africaregion has made progress reducing the gender gap in account ownership from 17 percentage points in 2017 to 13 percentage points42% of women now have an account compared to 54% of men. Opportunities abound to increase account ownership broadly by digitalizing payments currently made in cash, including payments for agricultural products and private sector wages (about 20 million adults with no account in the region received private sector wages in cash, including 10 million in the Arab Republic of Egypt). Shifting people to formal modes of savings is another opportunity given that about 14 million adults with no account in regionincluding 7 million womensaved using semiformal methods.

SA

InSouth Asia, 68% of adults have an account, a share that has not changed since 2017, though there is wide variation across the region. In India and Sri Lanka, for example, 78% and 89% of adults, respectively, have an account. Account usage has grown, however, driven by digital payments, as 34% of adults used their account to make or receive a payment, up from 28% in 2017. Digital payments present an opportunity to increase both account ownership and usage, given the continued dominance of casheven among account ownersto make merchant payments.

SSA

InSub-Saharan Africa, mobile money adoption continued to rise, such that 33% of adults now have a mobile money accounta share three times larger than the 10% global average. Although mobile money services were originally designed to allow people to send remittances to friends and family living elsewhere within the country, adoption and usage have spread beyond those origins, such that 3-out-of-4 mobile account owners in 2021 made or received at least one payment that was not person-to-person and 15% of adults used their mobile money account to save. Opportunities to increase account ownership in the region include digitalizing cash payments for the 65 million adults with no account receiving payments for agricultural products, and expanding mobile phone ownership, as lack of a phone is cited as a barrier to mobile money account adoption. Adults in the region worry more about paying school fees than adults in other regions, suggesting opportunities for policy or products to enable education-oriented savings.

Link:

COVID-19 Drives Global Surge in use of Digital Payments - World Bank Group

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) Reigning Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic famously decided not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 which prevented him from playing at the Australian Open in January following a legal saga that ended with his deportation from that country, and, as things currently stand, will prevent him from entering the United States to compete at the U.S. Open in August.

More than two years after the pandemic began, coronavirus cases are on the rise around the world lately, due mostly to certain variants, and the health and vaccination status of individual athletes is once again a key issue. At Wimbledon, where the All England Club is following British government guidance that requires neither shots nor testing, three of the top 20 seeded men have withdrawn over the first four days of action because they got COVID-19, with No. 17 Roberto Bautista Agut pulling out Thursday.

Thats raised the specter of an outbreak among players at the Grand Slam tournament, where there essentially is an honor system: If you dont feel well, youre encouraged to get a test on your own; if you test positive, youre encouraged to reveal that and take yourself out of the bracket.

I wont lie: When I have a cough or something, I get paranoid. Its what we kind of have to learn to live with. I feel bad for people who test positive. A place like Wimbledon is definitely not where you want to have it, said Ajla Tomljanovic, a 29-year-old from Australia who is ranked 44th and won Thursday to set up a third-round match against 2021 French Open champion Barbora Krejcikova.

If you have symptoms or youre feeling under the weather, its your responsibility. I think we all travel with home kits; at least I do. And then once youve tested positive, thats where it comes in that you just say you have it, Tomljanovic said. Because you could have lower symptoms and try to play, but that wouldnt be the right thing to do.

At Roland Garros last month, Krejcikova lost her opening match in singles, then withdrew before trying to defend her doubles championship after saying she tested positive for COVID-19.

Rafael Nadal, a 22-time Grand Slam champion, said after his second-round victory Thursday that he is not doing much other than coming to the tournament site and staying at the house he is renting in the area, not going out at all anymore.

This is not just a tennis issue, of course. Its something people are grappling with in all lines of work: how worried to be, when to test, whom to tell.

In sports, its arisen in Major League Baseball, where some players have been unable to travel for games at the Toronto Blue Jays because of Canadas rule against allowing entry to unvaccinated foreigners the same sort of restriction that kept Djokovic, a 35-year-old from Serbia with 20 Grand Slam titles, from participating in tournaments in California and Florida earlier this season and would stop him from going to the U.S. Open, because he says he will not get a shot against COVID-19. In the NBA, Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving appeared in only 29 of 82 regular-season games this past season, largely because of his decision not to get vaccinated.

Nearly all women and men in the top 100 of the WTA or ATP tour rankings did get vaccinated. For some, it was all about wanting to avoid getting sick.

Pretty easy: Vaccines work. Everyone has a right to choose, but more or less, the reason we dont die from diseases from 50 years ago is because we got vaccines, said eighth-seeded Jessica Pegula, who is from Buffalo and won Thursday to reach Wimbledons third round for the first time. Of course, it came out really fast, so, sure, theres always that thought: I hope nothing happens. Some people had bad experiences. But for me, I thought it was worth the risk.

For others tennis players, it was more about ensuring they could continue to make a living.

The ATP, similar to the NFL, the NBA, MLB, theyre kind of making you get it, in a way. Theyre saying: If you dont get it, you might not be able to play certain tournaments or in these games, and were going to kind of make things so miserable that youre going to have to get it, said Sam Querrey, an American who reached the Wimbledon semifinals in 2017. So for me, it was a combination that I think it was good to get it, and it makes your life a lot easier from a professional standpoint.

Some players say they respect the choice by Djokovic, who has said he got COVID-19 twice, to stick to his no-vax stance even if it hurts his ability to keep pace with Rafael Nadal, a 22-time Grand Slam champion, in the major trophy count.

The sport needs him needs him in the sport and at big events, said Denis Shapovalov, a 23-year-old Canadian seeded 13th at Wimbledon who said he did not have an easy time deciding whether to get the shots himself but in the end, I figured it was better to be safe than sorry.

All has been back to pre-pandemic normal at Wimbledon this year after 2020, when the tournament was canceled altogether, and 2021, when players were in a bubble-type environment and needed to take COVID-19 tests, and stadium capacity was kept low in Week 1 and spectators were required to wear masks.

An All England Club spokesperson said COVID-19 policies are under constant review and pointed to updates made this week, such as increased cleaning, enhanced ventilation, making masks available to players and recommending that masks be worn on official tournament transportation.

I didnt even know that people were testing positive, said Coco Gauff, the 18-year-old American who was the runner-up at Roland Garros this year, until I saw another player wearing a mask.

Bautista Agut wrote on Twitter on Thursday that his symptoms werent very bad but that withdrawing was the best decision.

One of his coaches, Toms Carbonell, said in his own social media post in Spanish: Roberto could have tried to play the match because his symptoms arent bad. Out of respect to his colleagues and to the tournament, we decided not to go on court, even if the rules would have allowed it.

Bautista Aguts COVID-19 departure followed those of No. 8 Matteo Berrettini, the runner-up to Djokovic a year ago, on Tuesday, and of No. 14 Marin Cilic, the 2014 U.S. Open champion and 2017 Wimbledon runner-up, on Monday.

Asked after her victory Thursday what her level of concern is after the recent run of positive tests, No. 4 seed Paula Badosa replied quickly: Zero.

That, the 24-year-old who represents Spain explained, is both because she is vaccinated and already came down with, as she put it with a laugh, every type of COVID possible.

___

More AP Wimbledon coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/wimbledon and https://apnews.com/hub/tennis and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports

Follow this link:

COVID-19 at Wimbledon: 3 top-20 men out after positive tests - The Associated Press

All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub and follow our live updates page for the most recent information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

California could soon require businesses to notify workers when someone on their job tests positive for the novel coronavirus.

That mandate is outlined in new legislation, AB 685, that California lawmakers just approved. The bill is now on the Governors desk awaiting his signature.

Assembly member Eloise Reyes (D-San Bernardino) sponsored the bill. Her spokesperson told Healthline they believe this legislation would make California the first state to issue these requirements.

If we are serious about getting this pandemic under control, we must get serious about creating a comprehensive reporting framework that will allow worker protection agencies, workers themselves, and the public to combine forces and minimize collective risk, Reyes said in a news release sent to Healthline.

An expert who specializes in employment law says the Golden State is likely on solid legal ground.

A state has broad authority to make rules about the health and safety of its citizens said Michael C. Duff, JD, a professor of law at the University of Wyoming College of Law.

The legislature has full authority to do that Duff told Healthline. California may be on the cutting edge here.

All of this may come as a surprise if you thought your employer was already required to tell you if a co-worker tests positive for the novel coronavirus.

Experts tell Healthline that employers are responsible for notifying workers who may have been exposed to a co-worker who has tested positive, but there is not a hard-and-fast universal rule on a general notification in a workplace.

Is there a specific line somewhere that says you must report to employees any local infection, or divulge the number of people infected? No, theres nothing that is that specific said Dr. Lacey Wheat-Hitchings, MPH, the department chair of McFarland Clinic Occupational Medicine in Ames, Iowa.

Wheat-Hitchings says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outlines how to inform the workers who have had contact with a co-worker who tests positive.

Usually that involves letting them know that theyve been exposed to somebody that has been infected with COVID, so theyre at risk she told Healthline.

Typically, the guidance the CDC gives us is that anybody who is within 6 feet for 15 minutes or longer is potentially at risk for infection.

But Wheat-Hitchings says the employer cant name the specific co-worker.

That information is protected by health privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Businesses are required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to provide a safe working environment.

They are also required to report to the agency any infections contracted on the job as well as hospitalizations and deaths.

But some workers fear their companies are keeping them in the dark when it comes to COVID-19.

Amazon employees began tracking cases themselves and alerting other warehouse workers when and where someone tested positive for the virus.

Experts say the lack of information in a pandemic with a virus that is highly contagious and potentially deadly may raise questions about a companys liability.

Where your mind might logically go is, doesnt that open the employer up to liability by not informing employees? said Duff.

There are already thousands of lawsuits filed over COVID-19 related issues. The law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP, has a COVID-19 complaint tracker.

A spokesman for the law firm told Healthline that as of September 10, the total number of state and federal cases was 4,883.

Its not known how many were based on allegations of an unsafe work environment.

Duff says it may not be that easy to launch a workplace lawsuit over the virus.

Employees in many instances are not able to bring a lawsuit, he said. The key thing to remember is if COVID-19 is covered by workers compensation, no lawsuit is possible.

There is a rush for companies to protect themselves from liability.

A second stimulus bill has been bogged down in Congress, in part, over liability protections for hospitals, schools, and businesses.

The Republican-backed provisions would prevent workers from suing their employers if they develop COVID-19 on the job.

If you worry you may have been exposed to a co-worker who has tested positive but you werent notified, heres what you should know.

Wheat-Hitchings says its the employers responsibility to know where the employees are working and the people they work with.

They should get additional information from the worker who has tested positive.

Then, the contact tracing is done by an outside agency, usually a public health department.

Anybody that falls within the 6 feet, 15 minute time frame should be quarantined.

Wheat-Hitchings says there are lots of testing options coming online for employers. She encourages companies to invest in testing.

She says that will help them get people back to work faster and give the workers some peace of mind. As an employee, you can ask if there is an option for testing.

Wheat-Hitchings also encourages companies to let workers know all the things they are doing to keep the workplace safe.

As an employee, its really an unnerving time because there really isnt a lot of structured guidance she said.

So I definitely understand that theres some worry about how do I ensure that my employer is doing his or her job to protect me.

Continued here:

Healthline: Medical information and health advice you can trust.

COVID vaccine second booster: Here's who can get the 4th shot

Here's what to know about the second COVID-19 booster shot and if you are eligible for it.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

Less than half of Tennessee and the country as a whole have received even one COVID-19 booster shot, despite federal recommendations and again-increasing infections and hospitalizations related to the novel coronavirus, government figures show.

The numbers are even worse for second booster shots, which are recommended for people 50 and older and those with weakened immune systems.

As of the holiday weekend, only 24% of Tennesseans of the recommended age have gotten both extrashots, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The national numbers arent much better: 27% had done so as of last week, the CDC reported.

Part of it may be a result of the fact that the latest COVID-19 variants havent caused the spike in serious illnesses seen last winter and summer.

"The caveat to this though and its an important one is that there is quite a bit of concern for infections in people who are severely immunocompromised," said Leslie Waller, an epidemiologist with the Nashville Metro Health Department. "Because we know that they run a higher chance of experiencing these severe outcomes than other people, even if theyre vaccinated."

Fauci on vaccines: Q&A: Anthony Fauci on mask mandates and whether the pandemic is finally nearing an end

Related coverage: COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations continue rising in Tennessee and Davidson County

Anthony Fauci, the Biden administrations lead COVID-19 advisor, has said a second booster is often needed because the protection offered by the first booster shot wanes over time.

So, what is the consensus advice on getting vaccine boosters?

The CDC recommends that everyone who is at least 5 years old and medically able to get a first booster shot should do so.

Children and teens who are generally healthy should wait five months after completing their series of initial vaccinations before doing so. Children with compromised immune systems should do so after three months, according to the CDC.

Adults who are generally healthy should wait five months after completing their initial vaccinations with either the Pfizer or Moderna-brand shots. Those who received the one-shot Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine should get boosted two months after the initial shot.

"Everyone is recommended to get a firstboosterand has been for a while," Waller said. "When this recommendation was made last year there were some indications in national data that were discussed that mentioned some waning immunity."

Public health agencies recommend that all adults 50 and older, as well as those who are immuno-compromised, get a second booster shot at least four months after getting an initial booster.

The CDC in May also strengthened its recommendations on boosters, recommending that children who are 12 and older who have compromised immune systems also get a second shot.

Health officials have not pushed for this as much as they have for initial vaccinations and initial boosters. Even Fauci, in an interview with The Tennessean in April, suggested that the need to get these second shots is not cut and dry.

"If you're talking to me about a man who's 52 who has diabetes and hypertension, I would recommend that person get a boost. If you have someone who's 50, 51, perfectly healthy, athletic, with no underlying conditions, I say it may not be necessary. It depends on your personal risk aversion."

It's unclear if additional booster shots will continue in the months and years to come, though Fauci has said it's likely we'll see public health advisories similar to annual flu shot recommendations.

Despite the widespread availability of COVID vaccines for all Americans, millions still have not even received one shot to protect themselves from the novel coronavirus.

As of this holiday weekend, nearly 22% of Americans had not received a single dose. In Tennessee, it was more than 37%.

This worries physicians and epidemiologists because those who are completely unvaccinated are much more likely to get seriously ill or die from COVID-19. Yes, people still get sick and die after vaccination, but it's not common.

"Only about 11% of deaths locally are documented as breakthrough cases, which means the remaining 89% of COVID cases that died were unvaccinated," Waller said in an email. "When were talking about severe outcomes and concerning trends, the biggest concern, especially in times of widespread community transmission, is still for those who remain unvaccinated."

Evidence also suggests that people who are completely unvaccinated are more likely to suffer a range of long-term, and often physically and mentally debilitating,health problems, even if their initial COVID-19 illnesses were relatively mild a condition commonly known as "long COVID," said James Jackson, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University and one of the country's leading experts on long COVID.

"Believe me you don't want to get long COVID, so please get vaccinated" Jackson said."You might not die now if you get COVID. But, I think if many people knew how limiting and disruptive long COVID is for a lot of folks, I think they would factor that in in their decision to get vaccinated."

Frank Gluck is the health care reporter for The Tennessean. He can be reached at fgluck@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter at@FrankGluck.

Want to read more stories like this?A subscriptionto one of ourTennessee publicationsgets you unlimited access to all the latest political news,plus newsletters, a personalized mobile experience, and the ability to tap into stories, photos and videos from throughout the USA TODAY Network's daily sites.

Read more here:

Less than half of Tennessee has received a COVID-19 booster shot - Tennessean

File image

PublishedJul 1, 2022 6:24 PM by The Maritime Executive

"Cabin Fever: The Harrowing Journey of a Cruise Ship at the Dawn of a Pandemic"gives the public a new inside view of the COVID outbreak aboard the Zaandam in the early days of the pandemic.Multiple countries refused the ship permission to berth, leaving the passengers stuck on board as the infection spread.

Journalists Michael Smith and Jonathan Franklin detail the Zaandam's difficult voyage, which began just days before the world shut down in March 2020.

When the ship departed on March 7, 2020from Buenos Aires, Argentina, shewas carrying 1,200 passengers -themajority of whom were Americans, Europeans and South Americans - and a crew of 600. Most of the passengers were over the age of 65.

The ship made stops inMontevideo, Uruguay, and the Falkland Islands, and planned to conclude her voyage in San Antonio, Chile on March 21.But the cruise came to an end when South American governments began shutting the ship out due to coronavirus concerns. On March 22, the Zaandam's captain ordered passengers to stay in their cabins after dozens of people aboard began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.

After a dayslong ordeal, the Zaandam was eventually allowedto pass through the Panama Canal and dockin Fort Lauderdale (after facing local opposition). A total of four passengers died during the cruise, although it was not confirmed whether or not each death occurred due to the virus.

When the ship departed, there was concern about the virus, which had already killed and sickened passengers on other cruiseships. But that was oceans away, and escaping to sea at the ends of the earth for a few weeks seemed like it might be a good option. The cruise line had said the voyage that would take passengers on a three week cruise around the South American coastlinewould carry on as scheduled.

According to the authors, the operatormaintained the cruise would be safe and suggested thatZaandamwas immune to the threat of COVID-19 - despite the fact that the company had been forced to deal with three other major outbreaks on its other vessels.

The narrative follows a retired American school superintendent on a dream vacation with his wife andan Argentine psychologist taking this trip to celebrate her sixty-fourth birthday with her husband.For the four, and everyone else, what was supposed to be a fun-filled voyage on a luxury cruise quickly transformed into something else.

Visit link:

An Inside Look at the COVID-19 Outbreak Aboard the Zaandam - The Maritime Executive

Although primarily associated with respiratory complications, COVID-19 can be severe or fatal for individuals with preexisting heart conditions.

The reasons for COVID-19-related cardiac damage are largely unknown, but inflammation (i.e., cytokine storm) and oxidative stress are believed to be involved.

One study, published in the International Journal of Cardiology, examined how COVID-19 attacks the heart. Investigators from Ruhr-University Bochum utilized microscopy and histochemical methodology to analyze the heart tissue structures of COVID-19 patients.

The research team sought to determine if cardiomyocytes were targeted by SARS-CoV-2, and how inflammation and oxidative stress are involved. They compared the impact of pro-inflammatory and oxidative stress on virus entry and virus-associated cardiac damage between COVID-19 patients and non-infected donor hearts.

The investigators found the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly in heart cells. Our observations show that the virus exerts pressure on the heart muscle, attacks and weakens the contractile force, i.e., the pumping function of the heart, said Nazha Hamdani, PhD, an author of the study.

The team found the virus may be able to penetrate the heart muscles cells due to increased proteolytic activity, which activates specific enzymes that degrade proteins and lead to cardiac muscle cell dysfunction. The entry of COVID-19 into heart cells results from the activation of the spike protein enzymes responsible for the degradation of proteins, its entry into cells relying on this degradation.

The investigators also examined the proteins responsible for apoptosis, finding that while they had increased activity, their expression was significantly reduced. Hamdani said, This indicates that the proteins are cleaved, and apoptosis is activated. The results imply that apoptosis contributes to the deterioration in cardiac contractility observed in SARS-CoV-2 patients.

After exploring what promotes this increased proteolytic activity and apoptosis of cardiac myocytes, the investigators identified COVID-19-associated inflammatory environment and oxidative stress.

Neutrophils, a primary cell type that releases proteolytic enzymes, are rapidly mobilized from the bloodstream into the damaged tissue during an inflammatory response. Proteolytic enzymes are released more frequently in COVID-19 patients, leading the investigators to analyze the signal pathway of the interleukin-6-driven neutrophil traffic.

We found that neuropilin-1 potentiates SARS-CoV-2 entry into human cardiomyocytes, a phenomenon driven by inflammatory and oxidant signals, the study authors wrote. These changes accounted for increased proteases activity and apoptotic markers thus leading to cell damage and apoptosis.

The team found that inflammatory signaling pathways in cardiac myocytes were highly regulated, and interleukin-6 was highly elevated, suggesting the critical role of white blood cells in COVID-19 patients and their inflamed pathways.

SARS-CoV-2 is able to spread in the infected heart in a receptor-dependent and receptor-independent manner, explained Hamdani. We also examined another mechanism by which the virus can gain access to the heart muscle cells, thus contributing to endothelial dysfunction. We will soon be able to publish these results.

Original post:

How COVID-19 Infiltrates and Inflames the Heart - Contagionlive.com

The issuance of various governmental orders requiring businesses to temporarily modify or close their operations during the COVID-19 pandemic led to an immediate avalanche of claims and lawsuits involving first-party commercial property policies. Suits relating to the pandemic have also involved, to a lesser extent, event cancellation policies, general liability policies, directors and officers liability policies, and other types of insurance policies. As resulting litigation and activity regarding these other policy types has been limited, the focus here will be on first-party commercial policies.

This article examines the current state of COVID-19 coverage litigation in the United States, where insurers have taken a commanding lead over policyholders. To date, trial court rulings have heavily favored insurers, and insurers have prevailed in the vast majority of appellate court decisions.

Legislation To Address COVID-19 Coverage Issues Has Been Proposed, But Not Enacted

Legislation has been proposed at the federal level that would establish a federal backstop for business interruption and event cancellation losses resulting from a future pandemic or public health emergency. Another bill would have had features similar to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The Business Interruption Relief Act of 2020 would have reimbursed insurers that voluntarily paid COVID-19 business interruption claims under policies that include coverage for civil authority shutdowns, but exclude virus-related loss. These bills have not been enacted.

Perhaps more problematic for insurers were the legislative proposals in several states. Some of these proposals would have, by legislative fiat, retroactively required insurers to provide business interruption insurance under policies that expressly exclude coverage for virus claims and/or that do not apply due to lack of direct physical loss. These proposals would have faced substantial legal challenges if enacted, but to date no such proposals have become law. Accordingly, legislative declarations have not trumped insurance contract language agreed to by the contracting parties.

COVID-19 Coverage Claims Are Proceeding As Individual Cases In The United States

In contrast to England, COVID-19 coverage issues are being resolved in individual cases in the United States. On August 12, 2020, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize nearly 300 COVID-19 related business interruption coverage actions filed against over 100 insurers in various district courts across the country, including in the Northern District of Illinois and in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The panel concluded that an industry-wide multidistrict litigation (MDL) in this instance will not promote a quick resolution of these matters as the substantial convenience and efficiency challenges posed by managing a litigation involving the entire insurance industry outweighs the limited number of common questions. The Panel also declined to create regional and state-based MDLs. Though there has not been mass consolidation or global resolution, courts generally have resolved COVID-19 coverage cases expeditiously.

An Avalanche Of COVID-19 Coverage Cases Filed Across The United States In A Compressed Time Period

According to the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker, as of the end of May 2022, there were approximately 2,301 COVID-19 coverage cases filed in state and federal courts across the United States. The pace of new filings had slowed until a slight uptick in the first part of 2022, as the two-year contractual limitations period for filing suit under many first-party policies approached.

The Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker breaks down the coverage claims as follows: 2,091 involve business interruption; 1,893 involve extra expense; 1,801 involve civil authority; 245 involve ingress/egress; 123 involve contamination; 96 involve event cancellation; 91 involve sue and labor; 41 involve premium relief; 22 involve liability; and 229 are characterized as other. Approximately 474 cases have been filed as putative class actions and 824 cases include allegations of bad faith.

The Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker also reports that the top industries involved in the litigation by case number are: food and drink (750); ambulatory health care (273); accommodation (151); personal and laundry services (121); amusement, gambling, and recreation (115); real estate (106); professional, scientific, and technical services (82); clothing and accessories (78); performing arts and spectator sports (73); educational services (41); and hospitals (41).

Insurers Have Racked Up Victories In The Majority Of Decisions On Motions To Dismiss, Motions For Summary Judgment, And Have Prevailed In The First Two Trials

At the trial court level, through the end of April 2022, insurers have prevailed in more than 79 percent of the 203 rulings on motions to dismiss in state courts across the country and in more than 95 percent of the 638 rulings in federal courts. These victories have been predominately obtained on the following grounds: (1) the virus claims do not involve direct physical loss or damage to property as required by the language contained in most U.S. first-party policies; (2) governmental orders do not constitute loss of property; and (3) virus or other exclusions preclude coverage. Insurers have prevailed in approximately 63 summary judgment rulings (with partial summary judgment granted to insurers in another 14 cases), while policyholders have prevailed in whole or in part in just 11. Insurers have also prevailed in the first bench trial and in the first COVID-19 jury trial. While policyholders have voluntarily dismissed many suits, many more cases remain pending. The score card is subject to daily change, but insurers have, for the most part, continued to obtain favorable rulings.

Insurers Hold A Commanding Lead In Appellate Court Level Decisions

Until mid-June 2022, insurers had prevailed in every appellate court decision on COVID-19 coverage issues rendered on the merits by both federal and state court. Insurers had run the table in each of the decisions rendered by the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal so far, with the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits having ruled for insurers under the laws of multiple states. Although the Third Circuit has not rendered any rulings, there are numerous appeals on its docket.

After federal courts began rendering decisions in favor of insurers on COVID-19 coverage issues, policyholder advocates complained that the issues were matters of state contract law that should be decided by state appellate courts. Such sophistry was nothing more than an attempt by policyholder advocates to deprive insurers of a federal forum for resolving coverage disputes. Federal court judges obviously are capable of readily ascertaining and applying state contract law, are frequently called upon to do so, and are vested with diversity jurisdiction to decide such matters. Not surprisingly, federal courts largely have declined to defer or delay resolving appeals on their dockets and, instead, have simply proceeded to resolve the COVID-19 coverage cases before them promptly. Occasionally, a case has been stayed. For example, the Ninth Circuit recently stayed a case pending a decision in a case before the Washington Supreme Court. Washington is one state where policyholders are hoping to obtain better results.

Many state appellate courts have yet to render decisions. Early results suggest that policyholder appeals of COVID-19 coverage rulings will not fare significantly better before state appellate courts, as policyholders they have lost the first 20 plus state appellate court COVID-19 coverage decisions. To date, the high courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin have rendered COVID-19 coverage decisions in favor of insurers. Intermediate appellate courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Ohio have rendered decisions in favor of insurers. Policyholders secured their first appellate court win in a COVID-19 coverage decision on June 15, 2022. This case, decided by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, was accompanied by two dissents. In light of these dissents and the perhaps somewhat questionable reasoning in the decision, many believe the case may be headed to the Louisiana Supreme Court for reversal.

Additionally, in another recent case, a policyholder was able to secure an affirmance of a trial courts denial of a motion to dismiss on its contingent business interruption clams under a Pollution Legal Liability Policy, where the insurer acknowledged that COVID-19 constitutes a pollution incident as defined by the policy and the insurer failed to establish at the motion to dismiss stage that contingent business interruption was only available where the policyholder was denied complete access to its property.

The COVID-19 Coverage Wars Will Wage On For Some Time

A limited number of policies may afford some coverage for the COVID-19 business interruption cases. However, where any coverage is afforded it is usually quite limited in scope and often subject to low limits of liability and/or sub-limits.

Notably, the litigation realities have caused some policyholders to voluntarily dismiss their claims. Yet, given the high stakes, many policyholders will continue to pursue coverage for their COVID-19 losses notwithstanding their disappointment in the results. Indeed, there is a long way to go in the COVID-19 coverage wars, as many appeals remain pending. There are over 160 appeals pending in federal court and at least 65 pending in state court. Many cases are still pending at the trial court level.

It is difficult to state the number of policies containing virus exclusions. An analysis of the policies subject to rulings on motion practice suggests approximately 65% contain exclusions. We suspect very few commercial first-party policies issued after the pandemic were issued without virus exclusions.

No one expected that insurers would remain essentially undefeated in COVID-19 coverage actions at the appellate court level. Some policyholder advocates are claiming that the tide has turned with the single Louisiana Court of Appeals decision, Still, at this junction, it seems fair to say that policyholders are beginning to run out of arguments as well as jurisdictions with respect to first-party COVID-19 business interruption coverage claims.

Link:

The State Of COVID-19 Coverage Litigation In The United States - JD Supra

Gretchen Homan| Special to The Capital-Journal

With August around the corner, nows the time to make sure our kids are protected from COVID-19 when they return to school. As parents, we want the best for our kids. Its our responsibility to make decisions on their behalf to keep them healthy, safeand in a position to thrive.

We never expected parenting would involve a global pandemic, school closures, remote learningand protecting children who were not eligible for vaccines.

Thankfully, in recent weeks the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made it easier for all parents to protect their children from COVID-19 by authorizing vaccines for children ages 6 months through 4 years and boosters for children ages 5 through 11.

The vaccines are safe and tested

Early on, we yearned for a return to normal and knew a vaccine was critical to achieving that goal. Thanks to established vaccine science, research, rigorous clinical trials, and ongoing safety monitoring, adults have been eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020.

The results have been amazing reduced risk of death, severe illness, hospitalization, and spread.

Adults helped us return to normal, but kids can keep us there. Children share viruses as easily as they share toys. Kids need protection from COVID-19, just as we protect them from other vaccine-preventable infections.

Following the same process, safe, effective vaccines and boosters have been available for children ages 5 to 17. Over 27 million children ages 5 through 17 have gotten a COVID vaccine.

The same rigorous authorization process was used for the vaccines for children under 5.

Children can get very sick from COVID-19.

Much of what pediatricians do is preventive health care. Vaccines are a crucial part of that. Administered in a moment, vaccines can provide children with lasting protection from devastating illnesses.

To greatly reduce risks to our children, we must prioritize COVID-19 vaccination. However, in Kansas, only 25% of kids ages 5 through 11 and 53% of kids ages 12 through 17 have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, children have accounted for about 19% of cases in the United States. Children are getting the virus.

Although the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the brain and organs are not entirely clear, we know some people, including children, suffer significant long-term complications that hinder their ability to live full lives. As parents, we should embrace the opportunity to vaccinate our children against COVID-19s long-term effects.

Elise, a Hutchinson teen, was a healthy 15-year-old when she contracted COVID-19. After her quarantine ended, she returned to school. She didnt make it through the day. Shed developed long COVID. She had no energy and was short of breath.

Seventeen months later, Elise is still attending school online. She cant sit up for long periods of time without getting dizzy, and she uses a wheelchair to get around. Thankfully, she recently stopped using supplemental oxygen.

Its normal to have questions about vaccinating your child. Doctors welcome them. If you have concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, please talk to your childs doctor. We know appointments go quickly; a good way to prepare is to write your questions down beforehand and bring them with you.

As parents, we both chose to vaccinate our kids against COVID-19. We knew vaccination was critical to preventing illness, keeping them safe, and supporting healthy development.

Previous generations of parents were the first to vaccinate children against measles, rubella, and polio. When our children look back, theyll realize how important it was for their parents to vaccinate them against COVID-19. Join us in doing everything we can to protect the health and well-being of our children.

You can find a COVID-19 vaccine near you at vaccines.gov or by calling (800) 232-0233.

Gretchen Homan, M.D., is president of the Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and former chair of the Immunize Kansas Coalition. David Jordan is president and CEO of the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund in Hutchinson.

Visit link:

Right now is the right time to vaccinate your child against COVID-19 - The Topeka Capital-Journal

While COVID-19 brought development to a halt in cities across the country and the world, construction continued to hum in Long Beachalbeit at a slower pace.

One thing we did really early on, which was not the case in other big cities: When the pandemic hit, we made a direct appeal to the governor, as did a couple of mayors in California, to not stop construction of projects, Mayor Robert Garcia told me over the phone last week, and we got that.

These days, construction across the city is nearing its pre-pandemic level. There are about $500 million worth of projects that have been permitted and are under construction and about 4,000 residential units currently in the pipeline.

Garcia attributes the ongoing momentum to Long Beachs early action in 2020.

Having that conversation [with Gov. Gavin Newsom] and him giving us the authority to still put into place really strong protections, he said, which included testing, social distancing and other requirements for construction workers, allowed the city to safely continue to build. Certainly we had to shut down businesses and restaurants, but construction actually didnt stop.

If construction were to stop, we could have killed and permanently stopped dozens of projects, Garcia added. So while the pandemic did slow down construction in some cases, it didnt stop projects.

Now, there are two dozen major projects currently under construction in Long Beach, while 13 more have been approved and 14 more are under review.

The Downtown area has been a major focus for developers in recent years, as the citys skyline continues to grow. Just last year, a new towerShoreline Gatewayclaimed the title of the tallest building in Long Beach.

But some of the most exciting projects looking forward are slated for other areas of the city. Four new developments have been proposed near 2ND & PCH in Southeast Long Beach that will offer more retail space and more than 1,300 new residential units.

Of course, those new units are sorely needed. As the city continues to build, housing remains a key concern. Under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Long Beach has been tasked with building 26,502 units between 2021 and 2029even as the city failed to meet its previous housing needs goal of 7,048.

And while the Southeast Long Beach projects will contribute to that lofty goal, Garcia said he still expects most of the housing growth to continue closer to Downtown.

The single most important part of what were doing is more housing, he told me. California is in a housing crisis, and we need a lot more housing. We need a lot more density in areas that can take the densityparticularly in Downtown and Midtown.

The citys list of ongoing development projects bears that out. In Downtown alone, the long-awaited Broadway Block, which is slated for completion next year, will offer 432 units, while a slate of other forthcoming projects like the Civic Center Mid-Block, West Gateway/World Trade Center and Third + Pacific will add over 1,500 more.

To be clear, COVID-19 did slow down progress on several projects. But its significant that those developments are still moving forward. The city is continuing to reinvent itself in ways that will, ideally, ease the burden of rising housing costs while offering better amenities and a more diverse array of businesses, shops and restaurants for the community.

Were not there yet, but together were rebounding from the worst of the pandemic. Together, were building a better Long Beach.

View original post here:

Ongoing development will help Long Beachs rebound from COVID-19 - Long Beach Business Journal - Long Beach News

According to Reddit user diskneelvr, some Disney influencers sick with COVID-19 were planning on visiting Disneyland today to ride Pirates of the Caribbean after it reopened. Diskneelvr shared a screenshot of the sick vloggers, seemingly from a video.

The influencers are Katie Slockbower and Spencer Emmons of Best Life and Beyond. A Change.org petition calls for Disney [to] remove Best Life and Beyond from being able to Video in your Parks.

According to the petition, Slockbower in particular continues to break park rules and harass and attack park goers while recording her vlog posts at the park.

The petition references Slockbower mocking a disabled guest riding a scooter in one of her videos. It also mentions Slockbower, who is white, attacking an African American family, including children, on the Mark Twain riverboat.

Reddit users also referenced Slockbower claiming another guest assaulted her after she was coughed on. Reddit user winnmab describes that video, which has since been taken down:

Basically she was hawking some merch on the Columbia during a live stream and kept showing the other guests. This gentleman cleared his throat and said, dont give these grifters any money when she walked by. She had him interrogated and thrown out of Disneyland with his kid claiming he assaulted her.

The man got the video removed because she showed his childs face without his permission.

Reddit user No_Point_6996 describes an encounter with the influencers:

I got stuck behind them last year on the Fourth of July at the plaza inn. They were at the front of the line and wouldnt let anyone else get their food because they kept reshooting saying happy Fourth of July multiple times. If you go back and watch the video from them on last Fourth of July when theyre at the plaza inn Im literally right behind them. Im not on camera but I was starving and they wouldnt move away from the counter where you get chicken and pasta.

She has a history of making false claims against guests at the park, the petition, created by Stephanie Fox, reads. She uses staff and security at the park as a weapon and constantly videos about how she will use them against park goers.

Fox also references Slockbower selling and promoting her products, even asking for money in the parks.

Her attitude and actions [go] directly against the values and magic of Disney and they need to be stopped for creating videos inside the park that are meant to intimidate guests and promote selling of their personal merchandise, Fox writes.

We dont yet know if the couple did visit Disneyland today. Pirates of the Caribbean is currently closed after several breakdowns this morning.

For the latest Disney Parks news and info, follow WDW News Today onTwitter,Facebook, andInstagram.

Related

Original post:

Vloggers With COVID-19 Reportedly Visit Disneyland, Hundreds Sign Petition For Disney to Stop Them - WDW News Today