User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
New virus causing ‘Alaskapox’ detected in two more cases
Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.
This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.
Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.
Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.
In both cases, the women recovered completely.
Smallpox-like illness
Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.
Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.
All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.
The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.
None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.
There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.
This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.
Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.
Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.
In both cases, the women recovered completely.
Smallpox-like illness
Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.
Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.
All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.
The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.
None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.
There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.
This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.
Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.
Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.
In both cases, the women recovered completely.
Smallpox-like illness
Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.
Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.
All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.
The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.
None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.
There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CDC chief overrules panel, OKs boosters for health care workers
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.
But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.
“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”
Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:
- Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
- Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
- Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.
About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose. About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65. Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.
In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.
Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.
“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.
The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.
“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”
She was not alone in feeling cautious.
“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.
“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”
The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?
Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.
“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.
Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”
Others agreed.
“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”
ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.
“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.
Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
Next steps
People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.
The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.
While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.
More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.
“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.
But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.
“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”
Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:
- Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
- Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
- Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.
About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose. About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65. Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.
In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.
Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.
“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.
The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.
“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”
She was not alone in feeling cautious.
“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.
“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”
The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?
Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.
“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.
Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”
Others agreed.
“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”
ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.
“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.
Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
Next steps
People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.
The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.
While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.
More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.
“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.
But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.
“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”
Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:
- Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
- Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
- Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.
About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose. About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65. Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.
In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.
Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.
“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.
The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.
“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”
She was not alone in feeling cautious.
“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.
“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”
The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?
Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.
“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.
Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”
Others agreed.
“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”
ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.
“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.
Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
Next steps
People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.
The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.
While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.
More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.
“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
New COVID-19 strain has reached the U.S.
Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.
On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.
About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.
However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.
“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.
Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.
Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.
Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.
The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.
On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.
About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.
However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.
“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.
Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.
Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.
Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.
The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.
On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.
About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.
However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.
“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.
Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.
Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.
Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.
The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cardiogenic shock teams again tied to lower mortality
A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.
The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).
Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.
Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.
Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).
Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.
A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).
A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.
Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).
Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).
“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”
The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.
Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).
Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.
For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).
Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.
Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).
“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.
Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.
“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.
Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.
They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).
Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.
“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.
“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”
One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.
The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).
Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.
Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.
Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).
Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.
A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).
A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.
Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).
Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).
“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”
The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.
Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).
Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.
For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).
Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.
Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).
“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.
Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.
“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.
Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.
They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).
Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.
“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.
“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”
One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.
The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).
Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.
Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.
Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).
Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.
A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).
A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.
Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).
Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).
“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”
The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.
Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).
Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.
For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).
Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.
Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).
“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.
Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.
“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.
Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.
They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).
Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.
“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.
“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”
One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Your bathroom towel rack has a dirty little secret
Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack
Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.
Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.
According to research conducted by electric heating company Rointe in the United Kingdom, bathroom radiators and towel racks/bars are the most germy and dirty parts of the bathroom.
Company investigators examined five bathrooms using swabs that changed color on contact with bacteria and found that 60% of towel racks and radiators were “really dirty,” compared with 50% of sink drains and just 10% of toilets.
Most people probably pay more attention to the sink, floors, and toilets while cleaning, the company suggested, and dampness is a factor in bacteria growth, so it’s no surprise that towels that stay wet on a rack are prime spots for dust, mildew, and mold.
The toilet may be busier, but you don’t put your face in it.
Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’
COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”
Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.
Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.
Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA
Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.
Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.
These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.
The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.
Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.
Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.
Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack
Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.
Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.
According to research conducted by electric heating company Rointe in the United Kingdom, bathroom radiators and towel racks/bars are the most germy and dirty parts of the bathroom.
Company investigators examined five bathrooms using swabs that changed color on contact with bacteria and found that 60% of towel racks and radiators were “really dirty,” compared with 50% of sink drains and just 10% of toilets.
Most people probably pay more attention to the sink, floors, and toilets while cleaning, the company suggested, and dampness is a factor in bacteria growth, so it’s no surprise that towels that stay wet on a rack are prime spots for dust, mildew, and mold.
The toilet may be busier, but you don’t put your face in it.
Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’
COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”
Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.
Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.
Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA
Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.
Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.
These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.
The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.
Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.
Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.
Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack
Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.
Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.
According to research conducted by electric heating company Rointe in the United Kingdom, bathroom radiators and towel racks/bars are the most germy and dirty parts of the bathroom.
Company investigators examined five bathrooms using swabs that changed color on contact with bacteria and found that 60% of towel racks and radiators were “really dirty,” compared with 50% of sink drains and just 10% of toilets.
Most people probably pay more attention to the sink, floors, and toilets while cleaning, the company suggested, and dampness is a factor in bacteria growth, so it’s no surprise that towels that stay wet on a rack are prime spots for dust, mildew, and mold.
The toilet may be busier, but you don’t put your face in it.
Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’
COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”
Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.
Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.
Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA
Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.
Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.
These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.
The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.
Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.
Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.
FDA OKs Pfizer COVID booster for 65 and over, those at high risk
The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.
The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.
The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.
The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
Other questions remain
So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.
The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.
“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”
Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.
Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.
Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.
Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other.
He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
Correlates of immunity
The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.
Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.
But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.
Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure.
The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity.
The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.
Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot.
Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away.
The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.
Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.
After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.
Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
Essential workers
Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.
Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.
“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said.
“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.
Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.
“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.
The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.
New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission.
In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.
The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.
The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.
The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
Other questions remain
So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.
The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.
“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”
Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.
Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.
Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.
Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other.
He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
Correlates of immunity
The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.
Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.
But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.
Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure.
The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity.
The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.
Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot.
Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away.
The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.
Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.
After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.
Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
Essential workers
Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.
Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.
“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said.
“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.
Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.
“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.
The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.
New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission.
In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.
The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.
“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.
The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.
The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
Other questions remain
So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.
The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.
“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”
Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.
Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.
Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.
Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other.
He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
Correlates of immunity
The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.
Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.
But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.
Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure.
The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity.
The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.
Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot.
Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away.
The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.
Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.
After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.
Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
Essential workers
Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.
Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.
“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said.
“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.
Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.
“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.
The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.
New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission.
In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nurses ‘at the breaking point,’ consider quitting due to COVID issues: Survey
In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.
“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”
Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”
“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.
And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
Heartbreak of the unvaccinated
The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.
But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”
The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”
The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”
Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
Avoiding a professional exodus
It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.
The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”
Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.
“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.
“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”
Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”
“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.
And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
Heartbreak of the unvaccinated
The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.
But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”
The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”
The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”
Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
Avoiding a professional exodus
It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.
The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”
Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.
“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.
“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), told this news organization. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”
Between August 26 and August 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”
“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, who is assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she says.
And when nurses leave, patients suffer, says Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
Heartbreak of the unvaccinated
The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” says Dr. Bettencourt.
But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”
The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”
The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”
Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she says.
Avoiding a professional exodus
It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. Earlier this month, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.
The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to a boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” says Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”
Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.
“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” says Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Decline in child COVID may signal end of latest surge
A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.
Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.
Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.
Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.
When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.
Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.
A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.
Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.
Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.
Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.
When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.
Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.
A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.
Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.
Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.
Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.
When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.
Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.
Call for a move or boycott of big Texas cancer meeting
Docs won’t attend in person
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs won’t attend in person
Docs won’t attend in person
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 claims more than 675,000 U.S. lives, surpassing the 1918 flu
, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.
Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.
The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.
Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.
In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.
In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.
There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.
In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.
As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.
According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.
Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.
“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.
Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.
The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.
Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.
In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.
In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.
There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.
In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.
As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.
According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.
Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.
“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.
Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.
The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.
Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.
In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.
In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.
There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.
In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.
As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.
According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.
Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.
“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.