All posts by medical

Human Behavior

Q&A: Has COVID-19 Shifted the Momentum of Climate Change? – University of Denver Newsroom

Airplane runways have quieted, rush hour traffic flows smoothly, and the smog has departed, revealing sunny, blue skies. COVID-19 has drastically altered life on a global scale, putting a halt or near halt to many of our most harmful practices. Could this temporary period of reckoning be enough to seriously combat climate change? Have humans changed their behavior for the long haul?

The DU Newsroom asked Brian ONeill, professor in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies and director of research for the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, to answer our burning climate change questions by email.

A number of reports from around the world indicate that shelter-in-place orders could have a positive effect on climate change. What evidence have you found most compelling?

We are already beginning to measure reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, due to the economic disruption caused by the pandemic. But that hasnt impacted the climate itself, and we shouldnt expect it to, unless the reduction in emissions is sustained for many years into the future. Sustained reductions in emissions eventually slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and in turn that eventually slows the increase in temperatures. The climate system responds very slowly to changes in emissions.

Also, any positive effects on emissions are really occurring for the wrong reasons. We dont want emissions to fall because the economy is shrinking and people lose jobs and have to stay home. We want them to fall because the world is moving off of fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. Without that happening, the current emissions effects are not helpful to the climate issue.

Which human behavioral changes undertaken in response to COVID-19 have had the most significant impact on the state of climate change?

Changes in transportation have had the largest effect on emissions and again the effect is on emissions that cause climate change, but not on the climate itself, which responds much more slowly. As you can imagine, use of electricity or natural gas to heat and light homes and run appliances has not been much affected. Some of that activity has switched from occurring in a workplace to occurring in homes, but the overall change has not been large. But with many people and businesses driving less, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from transportation has been significant.

Are any of these changes significant enough to change the trajectory of the threat of climate change?

No. The changes could be substantial for emissions this year, compared to historical trends. Rather than global emissions growing by about 1% per year, which has been the recent trend, they might fall by several percent. But climate change is caused by the accumulated impact of emissions over decades, so to really slow warming trends, emissions have to fall for a long time. For example, to meet the international goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, global emissions have to fall by several percent per year, every year, for two or three decades.

International responses to COVID-19 have been varied. Are there places around the world that have experienced a more dramatic/less dramatic environmental impact as a result?

Its hard to tell yet how different the effects on carbon emissions have been from place to place. Well need to wait for more data to come in to know that. But we do see a different impact on the environment that is striking already: reductions in local air pollution. Unlike climate change effects, effects on air quality occur very quickly. Local air pollutants often come from the same sources as carbon emissions, like driving cars and trucks or producing electricity. So the decrease in the [number of] vehicles on the road has improved air quality fairly dramatically in many cities around the world, including places in the U.S. like Los Angeles, but also in large urban areas like Delhi and Beijing, and many other places.

But here again, improved air quality is happening for the wrong reasons. We havent suddenly produced cleaner burning car engines or less polluting power plants. We have crashed the economy, which is not a solution to any environmental problem.

Could these positive impacts have a lasting effect on the health of our climate, or are they likely to be reversed as soon as some of these orders are lifted?

This is an important question, and it is too soon to tell what the long-term effects will be. In the short term, if, as we all hope, economies recover quickly from this disruption, carbon emissions will bounce back, too. Thats because this crisis is not leading to a change in the way energy is produced; it is just shrinking the economy. So within a year or two we will most likely be largely back on the trend of increasing emissions that existed before the pandemic occurred. Its possible that emissions may grow even faster, if countries prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.

In the longer term, its possible that the event will change attitudes about the importance of making society more resilient to disruptions of all kinds, including from climate change. That could lead to support for stronger efforts to shift energy production away from fossil fuels and begin reducing emissions for the right reasons, not the wrong ones, as is happening now during the pandemic.

As someone whose research looks to the future of climate change, do you think COVID-19 is likely to change the projections and assumptions researchers have been working with?

I would say yes, no and maybe, depending on how far into the future you want to look. The pandemic will almost certainly change the outlook for carbon emissions for the next few years, as economies suffer, and hopefully recover, from the immediate effects of the disruption. It may change the outlook for the next decade or so, as the effects of that recovery become clearer, and it could lead to either more or less growth in emissions than originally projected. Researchers studying, for example, how likely countries are to meet their emissions reductions goals in 2030 will have to update their analyses to take the effects of the pandemic into account. Changes in the climate system itself will not be noticeably affected over that time period, since climate responds to the accumulation of emissions over many years, not year-to-year changes in emissions.

Many researchers in this field look much farther out, decades into the future over the course of this century. My initial sense is that projections over that time scale are not likely to be substantially affected by this event. That could change, however, as we learn more over time about how big the effects of the pandemic and responses to it actually are, how long they last, and most important, whether they lead to behavioral or political changes that could have long-lasting effects.

What does the international response to COVID-19 teach us about combating climate change, surely another pressing threat to humanity?

The two issues are very different, not least because of the timescale. There are no projected impacts of climate change that are anticipated to be so sudden and at the same time so widespread. But from a broader perspective, it does demonstrate that the global community can make very large changes very quickly, given a strong enough motivation. Some of the discussions around the climate change issue have been about the feasibility of acting fast enough to meet the international goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees. So we do see now that fast action is possible. But even in this case the analogy is not all that strong, since the climate action has to be sustained over several decades.

Do you suspect some of the positive behavioral changes discussed earlier may be maintained after this pandemic?

I really dont know how this event is going to affect behavior, either of individuals or of political institutions. We are already beginning to see very different responses across different groups of people, and we are likely to see even more as the pandemic goes on. How that will play out over time is anyones guess.

Has this pandemic had any noticeable effect on how people see the relationship between climate and human health?

Some people have argued that the event could, or should, make us more aware of the connection between the environment and health, and therefore of climate and health. That might happen, but I am not sure that connection will be made in many peoples minds. Climate does not appear to be a key factor in causing the pandemic, and while climate change is projected to have important effects on health, substantially increasing the risks of pandemics is not one of them.

Read more here:
Q&A: Has COVID-19 Shifted the Momentum of Climate Change? - University of Denver Newsroom

Human Behavior

New COVID-19 modeling: Social distancing is working in MN but only if we keep it up – Minnesota Public Radio News

A new data analysis of the coronavirus outbreak nationwide suggests that Minnesotas social distancing efforts might be paying off in its response to COVID-19 but it also implies that even bigger outbreaks might lie ahead if those social distancing practices were to end.

The new model of the outbreak was developed by researchers at the University of Texas. Its one of many attempts by academics and government officials to use computer models to predict the course of COVID-19. Minnesota has its own model that state officials have consulted in their response to the pandemic. Because scientists still have a limited understanding of the new disease, each model uses different assumptions and different approaches in its predictions.

The work of the University of Texas COVID-19 Modeling Consortium is based on the correlation researchers observed between data that points to social distancing and a states number of COVID-19 deaths a few weeks later.

In other words, states where cellphone data showed people leaving their homes more often tended to have more COVID-19 deaths a few weeks later than states where that cellphone data shows people went out less. The time lag took into account their understanding that a person is most at risk of death a little more than three weeks after being infected with the virus.

As of April 18, Minnesotans were about 20 percentage points more likely to stay home than they were before the outbreak, according to the aggregated cellphone location data published by SafeGraph the University of Texas researchers used to estimate social distancing. Thats the 15th highest increase in stay-at-home behavior in the country and higher than all of Minnesotas neighbors.

Based on the connection they made between Minnesotans cellphone movement and social distancing, as well as trends they observed in other states, the researchers estimate a 93 percent chance that Minnesotas COVID-19 deaths will begin to decline in the next two weeks and a 70 percent chance that will happen within the next week.

The University of Texas' COVID-19 data model predictions, as of April 18.

David H. Montgomery | MPR News

Those predictions depend on the publics continued adherence to social distancing guidelines.

Theyre based on an assumption that Minnesota continues to practice the same degree of social distancing over the next few weeks even if deaths decline that it has to this point.

If social distancing restrictions are eased or even if they're not eased, if people en masse decide that they're not going to abide by these guidelines then certainly the projections of our model are out the window, said James Scott, a professor of statistics and data science at the University of Texas at Austin, and a member of the team who built the model.

Minnesotas stay-at-home order is scheduled to expire in just under two weeks on May 4. Gov. Tim Walz has not yet announced what will happen when the order expires.

The Texas model makes its predictions three weeks out through May 12, as of Thursday so if Minnesotas stay-at-home order is relaxed in May, the model would detect that decreased social distancing and likely predict more deaths two to three weeks down the road than it currently does.

Still, so far Scott said Minnesota has been ahead of the curve by employing social distancing guidelines and then rules relatively early in its COVID-19 outbreak.

Texas and Minnesota are both examples of states that seemed to distance early relative when their outbreaks began, Scott said. All the pain that they've endured in terms of staying apart, not seeing their friends ... has undeniably saved lives, because they clearly got out ahead of things, compared to how New York and New Jersey were.

The University of Texas COVID-19 model is completely different from the model built by the University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Health so different that theyre not really comparable.

They operate under two different assumptions about social distancing: The Texas model projects deaths two to three weeks out, on the assumption that social distancing will stay the same in that time period. The Minnesota model projects the outbreak into 2021 and assumes social distancing will relax at some point this spring or summer.

Given that, the Minnesota model forecasts the real peak of the outbreak to come this summer, once people begin interacting more and, presumably, spreading the disease more quickly. Thats not a time frame or scenario that the Texas model even attempts to simulate.

Simulations from two different scenarios in Minnesota's COVID-19 model, run on April 8.

David H. Montgomery | MPR News

Beyond those different assumptions, the models use completely different methods of assessment. Minnesotas model is an epidemiological model based on estimates about the nature of COVID-19. The Texas model uses a curve-fitting approach that tries to detect a trend based on observed data.

The two approaches each have their strengths and weaknesses and its not yet clear which approach will do a better job at predicting the course of COVID-19 in the state.

Minnesotas epidemiological model, called an SEIR model because it uses details about the time periods in which people with a disease are Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious and Recovered, is based on decades of research into infectious diseases. But because COVID-19 is so new, many of the inputs assumptions about the behavior of a disease to an SEIR model are still unknown, leaving Minnesotas model to rely on simulating hundreds of different estimates.

We feel good about the model and the structure. It aligns well with the disease as we understand it right now, Minnesotas state health economist Stefan Gildemeister said earlier this month.

Curve-fitting models like the Texas model dont take into account how diseases like COVID-19 function. Instead, it relies on data that reflects human behavior which is easier to observe.

Scott, the Texas researcher, said curve-fitting is a good fit in this situation, given the uncertainty about inputs for SEIR models. But he acknowledged that no one knows which approach will prove most useful.

If you have two models, both of which seem to be describing the data equally well and make very different forecasts about the future, that's a very difficult place to be in, Scott said.

There are more than two COVID-19 models out there. Many states have developed their own models, with varying degrees of transparency, as have a number of academics.

Prominently cited modeling includes that of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the White House coronavirus task force, and Imperial College in London. These models use different methods, different inputs, different time frames, and predict deaths from the pandemic an order of magnitude apart.

All of them, including Minnesotas model, only predict harm caused by the disease itself, and not social or economic strain that arises as it spreads.

Walz and other policymakers have been relying primarily on Minnesotas model to guide their understanding of the diseases risk here, though they have acknowledged paying some attention to other models like the University of Washingtons.

Both the Texas and Minnesota models are being continually updated. Neither one yet accounts well for clusters of cases in a single place, such as a nursing home or a meatpacking plant like the JBS plant in Worthington thats connected to dozens of cases in just the past few days.

Scott said his team in Texas is trying to better take into account the impacts of such outbreaks, and also to look at data on a more precise geographic level than entire states. A new version of Minnesotas model is also being developed and may be released later this month.

Health officials for weeks have been increasingly raising the alarm over the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The disease is transmitted through respiratory droplets, coughs and sneezes, similar to the way the flu can spread.

Government and medical leaders are urging people to wash their hands frequently and well, refrain from touching their faces, cover their coughs, disinfect surfaces and avoid large crowds, all in an effort to curb the virus rapid spread.

The state of Minnesota has temporarily closed schools, while administrators work to determine next steps, and is requiring a temporary closure of all in-person dining at restaurants, bars and coffee shops, as well as theaters, gyms, yoga studios and other spaces in which people congregate in close proximity.

Go here to read the rest:
New COVID-19 modeling: Social distancing is working in MN but only if we keep it up - Minnesota Public Radio News

Immunology

Infection Rate May Indicate a Future Diagnosis of Cancer – Cancer Network

In an article published inCancer Immunology Research, researchers suggested that immune suppression and increased infection could occur during the precancerous period.1

However, cancer can occur through a lifespan, therefore the authors indicated that further research is necessary to clarify these precancer trends.

"Cancer can develop in an inflammatory environment caused by infections, immunity disruption, exposure to chemical carcinogens, or chronic or genetic conditions,"co-author of the study Shinako Inaida, PhD, a visiting researcher at the Graduate School of Medicine at Kyoto University in Japan, said in a press release.2"An individual's immunity is thought to be a factor in the development of cancer, but additional research is needed to understand the relationship among precancerous immunity, infections, and cancer development.

In this 7-year case-control study of people 30 years of age, researchers looked to determine the prevalence of influenza, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and pneumonia infections to indirectly assess whether infections correlated to the formation of malignant cancer. Using data extracted from a large medical claims database of a Japanese social health insurance system, researchers identified 2,354 people with their first cancer diagnosis occurring in the seventh year of the study for the case group and 48,395 people with no cancer diagnosis by the seventh year of the study for the control group.

The most common cancers diagnosed in the case group were digestive and gastrointestinal, head and neck, and stomach cancers. Other cancer types diagnosed in the case group included cancers within the following categories:

The yearly prevalence rates of influenza, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and pneumonia infections were found to increase throughout the study period, with the case group experiencing higher rates of infection compared to the control group. Moreover, age-adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in cases 1 year before cancer detection were significantly higher. During this year, the infection prevalence rates for the case group were higher than the control group by 18% for influenza (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.46), 46.1% for gastroenteritis (OR. 1.60; 95% CI, 1.41-1.82), 232.1% for hepatitis (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.12-5.37), and 135.9% for pneumonia (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.79-3.13).

In patients with influenza infections, significant ORs were found only in the second and sixth years before cancer diagnosis. Further, for each cancer site, an increased rate of infection prior to cancer diagnosis was observed.

The researchers also found that certain infections appeared to have a greater correlation with specific cancer types. For example, the odds of influenza infection just before cancer detection were highest for those who developed male germ cell cancers. Additionally, the odds of pneumonia were found to be highest in those who later developed stomach cancer and the odds of hepatitis infection were highest in those who developed hematologic, blood, bone, or bone marrow cancers.

"Interestingly, we found that infection afflicting a specific organ did not necessarily correlate with increased risk of cancer in the same organ," Inaida explained.

Notably, the researchers only extracted the first cancer diagnosis for each patient and given that the observation period was limited to 8 years, further cancer diagnoses may have been missed. The data also did not include information such as the grade or stage of tumors, which may have been important to estimating each precancerous period.

Another limitation highlighted by the researchers was that patients with infection who did not visit the hospital may have been overlooked. Moreover, influenza vaccination status may prevent infection, although a patient's influenza vaccination record was not available in for this dataset.

Patients who feel unwell, potentially because of cancerous status, tend to see doctors more often, the authors wrote. Although our study considered four major infections, analysis of other infections and the timing of infection before malignant cancer detection, which can potentially be a factor for later cancer development, remains to be studied.

References:

1. Inaida S, Matsuno S. Previous Infection Positively Correlates to the Tumor Incidence Rate of Patients with Cancer.Cancer Immunology Research.doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19.0510.

2. Increased rate of infections may indicate a future cancer diagnosis [news release]. American Association for Cancer Research. Published April 17, 2020. eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/aafc-iro041520.php. Accessed April 17, 2020.

The rest is here:
Infection Rate May Indicate a Future Diagnosis of Cancer - Cancer Network

Immunology

Antibodies of COVID-19 patients may teach scientists how to protect others – BSA bureau

Some severely ill coronavirus patients have already been treated on an experimental basis with the blood plasma of recovered patients

Dr. Ziv Shulman of the Department of Immunology at the Weizmann Institute of Science says that the blood of coronavirus patients who have fully recovered from the disease contains a blueprint for building a molecule that may accelerate others recovery, or possibly form the basis of a vaccine.

Some severely ill coronavirus patients have already been treated on an experimental basis with the blood plasma of recovered patients, which is teeming with antibodies against the virus. But this method is unlikely to offer a large-scale method of treatment or prevention, as it depends on plasma donations from recovered patients, alone. In contrast, synthetic antibodies could be produced in large amounts by pharmaceutical companies and they are relatively safe.

Dr. Shulman is an expert in the part of the immune response in which certain antibodies the bodys memory of infection and protection against reinfection are produced and processed. This is the adaptive immune responsethe mechanism by which the bodys immune system recognizes specific invading microbes and reacts with both short-term and long-term antibodies.

He and his lab were the first in the world to visualize all of the antibody-forming cells in intact lymph nodesthe organs where immune cells improve antibody efficiency through a series of mutations. This achievement, which shed new light on the how, what, when, and where of the production of protective antibodies, revealed the lymph node nichespockets in which antibodies undergo rigorous selection, so that only the most fit are sent off to target and bind to invading pathogens.

This and other research in Shulmans lab has identified and characterized the training process that immune cells undergo, providing an unprecedented level of detail about the step-by-step process by which the bodys immune system optimizes its adaptive, protective response.

These findings and the expertise they have gained will now be directed toward the production and optimization of antibodies that will target one invader in particular: the COVID-19 virus.

Fully trained and certified in biosafety proceduresa must for coronavirus researchDr. Shulman and his team are in the process of establishing an experimental platform for handling samples from convalescent coronavirus patients.

Telltale signs

Together with Dr. Ron Diskin from the Department of Structural Biology, and clinicians, Dr. Shulman has obtained access to patients who have fully recovered from the coronavirus. These patients have volunteered to let the scientists examine their blood for telltale signs of antibodies generated in response to the coronavirus.

The Shulman team plans to use DNA sequencing and other techniques to clone the patients antibody-encoding genes and then reproduce them in the lab. This will allow them to identify the antibodies that are most effective in binding and neutralizing the viral proteins.

Dr. Shulman says, Patients who have been infected by the coronavirus and recovered hold the cure for the disease. By reproducing antibodies that target and neutralize viral proteins, it may be possible to use them to treat patients who suffer from severe symptoms. In addition, antibody injections might be used as a prophylactic treatmenta passive vaccinethat would protect medical staff from coronavirus infection.

Dr. Shulman is supported by the Azrieli Foundation, the Sir Charles Clore Research Prize, the Comisaroff Family Trust, the Lowy Foundation, theMorris Kahn Institute for Human Immunology,the Gerald O. Mann Charitable Foundation, the Moross Integrated Cancer Center, the David M. Polen Charitable Trust, andRising Tide Foundation

Read the original post:
Antibodies of COVID-19 patients may teach scientists how to protect others - BSA bureau

Immunology

Flagsticks, handshakes and masks: Infectious disease experts clarify coronavirus risks, say golf ranks as one of the safest sports" – Golf Digest

One thing about a pandemic in the digital age is theres no shortage of information. Its the good information that has been more elusive, and that extends to our understanding of the coronavirus in a golf setting. Can you get the virus from even walking past another golfer? Is there danger in reaching into the hole for your ball? Should we be playing while wearing masks?

In consulting a series of infectious disease specialists, all of whom are still learning more about the virus themselves, several consistent themes emerge. The good news? Golf is relatively safe, especially during a time when so much else seems rife with hazard. Golf has got to be one of the safest sports under the current circumstances, said Dr. Charles G. Prober, a professor of pediatrics (infectious diseases) and of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University.

But since nothing is without risk these days, we put a series of common golf-specific questions to three experts, Dr. Prober of Stanford, Dr. Amesh Adalja, a Senior Scholar at Johns Hopkins Universitys Center for Health Security, and Dr. J. Trees Ritter, DO, Fellow of the Infectious Disease Society of America. Their responses should help you understand what should and shouldnt be off limits, and where uncertainty remains. Above all, they might provide assurance that a golf course, navigated properly, can still be a refuge.

Can I contract the virus just walking by other golfers at the course?

This you shouldnt sweat. Though the virus main form of transmission is through person-to-person contact, all three experts emphasized just walking by other players on the course or in the parking lot was not a significant risk. The virus doesnt teleport from one person to another. It has to have some mechanism to get there, Adalja said. Yes, an infected golfer could emit respiratory droplets by sneezing or coughing in your direction, but thats why the doctors all cited the now-standard practice of maintaining a six-foot gap as a precaution. More is better, but these respiratory droplets really dont spread much more than spitting distance, Dr. Ritter said. When youre outside, the risk is even lower. Of course, the most important advice in this context is to tell anyone who is sick or symptomatic to stay home.

What if Im sharing a golf cart with someone?

No question sitting within close proximity of someone for 18 holes invites more risk than walking a sufficient distance apart, which is why many courses are temporarily restricting the use of carts, or at least limiting their usage to one person per cart. Although the experts say riding in a cart is not a significant risk, they do acknowledge it violates the six-foot rule. Additionally, they say golfers sharing carts sends the wrong message at a time when caution is still paramount. While it maybe isnt a huge risk, there are other factors to consider, Ritter said. Its better to be pretty rigid up front on what people can and cannot do just to keep them in that mindset.

The other variable when using a golf cart is touching a surface, like a steering wheel, that someone else has touched before you, a risk that courses can mitigate by sanitizing their vehicles between uses. If not, the experts advocated two other steps that youre surely familiar with by now: 1. Dont touch your face. 2. Wash your hands. And since washing your hands is not always an option in the middle of a course, an alcohol-based (at least 60 percent alcohol) hand sanitizer might be as valuable in your bag these days as an adjustable driver.

Speaking of touching stuff, my golf course says not to touch the flagstick or rake a bunker? Is that really a danger?

Danger is probably overstating it. Prober calls flagsticks an extraordinarily ineffective way to get the disease, because infection depends on a rare confluence of circumstances: someone sick contaminating the flagstick, the virus persisting on the flagstick despite exposure to ultraviolet light (which is believed to reduce the viability of the virus on a surface), then you touching the exact same part of the flagstick and ultimately your face. So in other words a lot has to happen, and the same can be said for rakes. But again, theres always a chance. Any type of touched surface has the potential for transmission, Adalja said, which is why he said, the same rules apply: If you touch something someone else touched, better to wash your hands and not touch your face.

How about reaching into a golf hole to get my ball?

There will be very minimal risk in those types of situations, Adalja said. You can dream up any kind of odd situation where the virus transmits in these special circumstances, but that wouldnt be something I would be worried about. Similarly, there isnt much use worrying about your putter clanking against someone elses putter if thats your new form of celebration. So much of what we talk about is that its all possible, but its pretty improbable many of these implied scenarios would result in infection, Ritter said.

Should I be playing golf with a mask?

As in society as a whole, consensus around masks is elusive. But our experts were skeptical of masks helping, especially as a defense mechanism. Masks are not really to protect you, but to protect other people, Adalja said. Also, Prober said, masks risk doing more harm than good because people tend to adjust them frequently. So theyre probably got their hands on their face more, including their eyes and their nose, he said.

What about a handshake?

Again, if the cardinal rule is to maintain distance, then handshakes need to be avoided. And if for some reason muscle memory takes over and you revert to old habits, you can probably guess what the doctors recommend. If youre going to shake hands with someone, Adalja said, you need to wash your hands.

GOLF + THE CORONAVIRUS: Is playing golf safe during the crisis? | How clubs/courses are adjusting | State-by-state breakdown of where golf is allowed and where it isn't | Golf's governing bodies release a newand tentativeschedule | PGA Tour announces plans to resume play in June, unveils modified 2020 schedule | No fans, plenty of questions: What a scaled-down PGA Tour event looks like | Complete list of pro/amateur tournaments canceled or postponed | How meditation can help your coronavirus anxiety | In praise of playing golf alone | 10 timelyand timelessgolf books to take your mind off the real world

View original post here:
Flagsticks, handshakes and masks: Infectious disease experts clarify coronavirus risks, say golf ranks as one of the safest sports" - Golf Digest

Immunology

WATCH: E.R. Doctors Urge A Reopening: Lockdown Creating Public Health Crisis, Doctors ‘Pressured’ To Add COVID To Death Reports, Quarantining Healthy…

During a press conference on Wednesday, California emergency room doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care told reporters that nationwide lockdown policies are not an appropriate reaction to what current data shows about the China-originated novel coronavirus but are instead causing measurable public health issues, like spikes in domestic violence, sexual abuse, depression, and spreading fear to non-COVID-19 related would-be patients that are skipping out on vital health care.

We understand microbiology, we understand immunology, and we want strong immune systems, Dr. Erickson told reporters, rebuffing inconsistent shelter-in-place orders . I dont want to stay in my home and develop a weak immune system, and then come out and get a disease.

Erickson noted that quarantining the healthy is like nothing hes seen before.We decided to keep people at home and isolate them, even though everything weve studied about quarantine, typically you quarantine the sick, he explained. When someone has measles you quarantine them. Weve never seen the healthy, where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home. So, some of these things from what weve studied from immunology and microbiology arent really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds who read this stuff.

E.R. doctors across the nation, from California, to Wisconsin, to New York, said Erickson, are seeing folks avoid critical lifesaving care out of fear.

When I talk to E.R. physicians around the country, whats happening? he said. Well, because COVID has become the focus, people with heart disease, people with cancer, hypertension, and various things that are critical are choosing not to come in based on fear. So what thats doing is forcing the health care system to focus on COVID and not focus on a myriad of other things that are critical because we dont have the staff there and the major complaint is fear.

Meanwhile, he claimed, the fatality rate for COVID-19, which he said might be more contagious than the flu, is on-par with flu fatality rates, if not lower.

In Kern County, weve tested 5,213 people and we have 340 positive COVID cases. Well, thats 6.5 percent of the population. Which would indicate a widespread viral infection similar to the flu, the doctor said. So if you look at California, these numbers are from yesterday, we have 33,865 COVID cases out of a total of 280,900 total tested, thats 12 percent of Californians were positive for COVID.

Well, we have 39.5 million people, if we just take a basic calculation and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 4.7 million cases throughout the state of California. Which means this thing is widespread, thats the good news. Weve seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California, he continued, adding, 96% of people in California who get COVID recover.

Dr. Massihi said the initial reaction to apply shelter-in-place two months ago, when all we could rely on was theoretical data, was likely the right call, but now that there is available real data, lockdown orders could create additional harm outside of COVID-19.

Dr. Erickson repeatedly called the initial models, which projected millions of COVID-19 deaths, woefully inaccurate. What they are seeing across the nation, and even in the rest of the world, however, is millions of cases, small amount of death, he reiterated multiple times.

This holds true even in New York, he argued. There are 19,410 deathsout of 19 million people which is a 0.1% chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of New York, and they have a 92% recovery rate if you are diagnosed with COVID, Dr. Erickson said.

Asked by a reporter if social distancing was key to dropping our deaths relative to model predictions, Dr. Erickson highlighted Sweden and Norway: both Scandinavian countries, Norway with lockdown and Sweden without. There is no real difference between their death rates to indicate lockdown is warranted, he argued.

Lockdown orders have resulted in, for one thing, a community spike in child molestation, the doctor noted.Molestation is increasing at a severe rate. We could go over multiple cases of children who have been molested due to angry family members who are intoxicated, who are home who have no paycheck, he said. These things last a lifetime these are things that will follow these people and affect them in a negative fashion for their life and these are secondary effects from COVID.

Spousal abuse,alcoholism, anxiety, depression, and suicide have also spiked in their community, Dr. Erickson said. Education has dropped off, economic collapse, medical industry, he added, were all suffering because our staff isnt here and we have no volume. These are all real things that Im seeing every day. I dont read about this stuff; Im seeing it in my clinics. We have clinics from Fresno to San Diego and these things are spiking in our community. These things will affect people for a lifetime, not for a season. So lets lets make sure were clear on that.

Dr. Erickson also noted that doctors across the country have felt pressured to include COVID on death reports.Its interesting, when Im writing up my death report, Im being pressured to add COVID, Dr. Erickson said hes heard doctors tell him. Why is that? Why are we being pressured to add COVID? To maybe increase the numbers and make it look a little bit worse than it is? I think so.

So this is what Im hearing from physicians I talked to in Wisconsin, New York, and everywhere, he said.

Lockdown measures are wildly inconsistent, favoring big businesses, Dr. Erickson added.So big businesses are open, little businesses are not? Theres no science behind that. As weve gone over, that is not science, theres other factors in play that we dont have time to go into, but its not science. I want to make that clear.

WATCH:

PART TWO:

The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream medias rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a subscriber.

The rest is here:
WATCH: E.R. Doctors Urge A Reopening: Lockdown Creating Public Health Crisis, Doctors 'Pressured' To Add COVID To Death Reports, Quarantining Healthy...

Immunology

Afraid of bringing coronavirus home? Experts have answers – Yahoo Singapore News

Even as millions of Americans remain isolated at home, they're still left wondering if they're bringing the virus into their house when they go to the market, walk the dog or take a run.

We posed these questions and others to epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Morse and virologist Dr. Vincent Racaniello- both from Columbia University.

Beginning with - what should you do immediately when you get home?

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. STEPHEN MORSE, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, SAYING:

"If I'm wearing a raincoat or something like that over a light jacket, then I can put that away in the closet and after a few days, I won't have to worry about that/"Then I would go and wash my hands and I'd probably wash my face too, just as a precaution."

But if you were around many people - for example - on a crowded subway car? Then Dr. Racaniello says you might want to change your clothes.

What about your shoes?

Dr. Racaniello says it's best to leave them outside or by the entrance of your home.

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. VINCENT RACANIELLO, HIGGINS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY & IMMUNOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, SAYING:

"The virus is not going to rise off, that's the thing, once the virus is settled on any object, it's just staying there. So if you don't touch it, you know, if you have shoelaces, you're going to come in and wash your hands anyway, that'll take care of that. Then the next morning, you put your shoes on. You go wherever you're going, and at some point, wash your hands. Just make sure you're not touching your face. I don't think you need to Lysol your shoes. No."

As for handling mail and groceries?

The doctors said it was fine to discard or recycle the outer packages and to put the inner items away without individually washing them. But it was essential to always wash your hands after.

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. VINCENT RACANIELLO, HIGGINS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY & IMMUNOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, SAYING:

"Contaminated packages, I haven't seen anything that would suggest that that's a major way of transmission. So I think what we do now is we put everything away and we wash our hands."

The doctor said it was important to be careful of high-touch surfaces like car doors, elevator buttons, key pads and credit cards.

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. VINCENT RACANIELLO, HIGGINS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY & IMMUNOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, SAYING:"The guy gives it back and that could be contaminated, the credit card, so you have to make sure you wash your hands. And the other place that's a high risk I think is in the store, any store where you put your card in, you punch a number in, those pads are high risk because hundreds of people are going through a day with dirty hands."

Morse said it was a good idea to wipe your phone down too.

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. STEPHEN MORSE, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, ON WIPING DOWN A PHONE, SAYING:"

"Phones are often neglected, and you use them a lot and very often you hold them up to your face and you touch them. "

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourages frequent handwashing for at least 20 seconds and disinfection of surfaces with an alcohol-based cleaner as methods of prevention

The CDC also recommends all Americans wear face masks in public settings when social distancing is impossible.

Does that include while jogging?

(SOUNDBITE) (English) DR. VINCENT RACANIELLO, HIGGINS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY & IMMUNOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, SAYING:

"You dont need to wear a mask. If you can stay six feet away..Some countries have banned jogging, which I think is completely unnecessary because you're not usually jogging next to someone. If you pass someone, just make sure you stay away from them, and I think it's fine. I think it's good. I think people need to do certain things, otherwise we're all going to go crazy. It's a balance between being very careful and maintaining your sanity."

The rest is here:
Afraid of bringing coronavirus home? Experts have answers - Yahoo Singapore News

Immunology

This CU Professor’s Research Could Hold a Clue to Treating COVID-19 – 5280 | The Denver Magazine

Dr. Mercedes Rincon's dining room home office. Rincon is a professor of Immunology & Microbiology at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine. She hopes her research on the molecule frequently produced in inflammation could shed light on possible treatments for COVID-19. Photo courtesy of Dr. Mercedes Rincon

Dr. Mercedes Rincon has studied a relatively obscure molecule that's often present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients for nearly three decades.

By the time Dr. Mercedes Rincon sits down at her computer at 11:30 p.m., shes already counseled her 93-year-old father, who lives alone in Madrid, about how to stay safe and stave off loneliness amidst the lockdown. Shes already met remotely with graduate students and lab techs overseeing a number of projects at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. And shes already participated in a virtual conference about arthritis research.

Her real work, though, has not yet begun.

Rincon, a Spanish-born professor in CUs Department of Immunology and Microbiology, has been studying a relatively obscure molecule known as interleukin-6 (IL-6) since 1994. Typically the concern of arthritis and cancer researchers, IL-6which is commonly produced in inflammationhas never been the sexiest subject. During the nearly 30 years shes been studying it, Rincons endured plenty of ribbing from colleagues about the somewhat unimpressive molecule.

Nobody is laughing now, though.

When the novel coronavirus began wreaking havoc on human lungs, Rincon saw a familiar microscopic face in the mix: IL-6 is consistently present in the lungs of the most severely affected patients. Whether IL-6 is a cause or a consequence of the novel coronavirus, Rincon isnt sure, but she hypothesizes that drugs like tocilizumab (traditionally used to treat rheumatoid arthritis), could possibly target IL-6 and prevent it from producing more damaging inflammatory molecules. Early results from studies in China, as well as research in Europe and at the University of Vermont, show some promise.

We cant conclude anything yet, Rincon cautions. We have to be careful. We need more data.

Which is why she s working into the small hours of Friday morning. Rincon wants the University of Colorado to be at the forefront of this research, so she spends the night writing a grant proposal. With a little funding and a little luck, Rincon and her ridiculed molecule might just provide Coloradansand the rest of the worldwith a reason to hope.

This story is powered by COLab, the Colorado News Collaborative. 5280 joined this historic collaboration with more than 20 other newsrooms across Colorado to better serve the public.

Jay edits and writes stories for 5280.com and assists the magazine with overall digital strategy.

Go here to read the rest:
This CU Professor's Research Could Hold a Clue to Treating COVID-19 - 5280 | The Denver Magazine

Physiology

Exploring the Coronavirus Pandemic: How the Host and Virus Interact – Technology Networks

Weve heard a lot about ways to prevent infection with coronavirus including social distancing measures, hygiene and the mission to find an effective vaccine. But what happens if you are exposed to SARS-CoV-2? What does the virus do once it meets our cells, why do we develop the clinical signs we do, how does the immune system respond to the invader and why are some people more vulnerable than others?In a recent interview with Technology Networks, Professor Ben tenOever, a Professor of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, explained how he and his team are investigating the way host cells respond to viral infection, specifically SARS-CoV-2, and discusses some of the techniques that have been key in enabling them to understand the way different patients may respond.

During a normal response to infection, our body generates a call to arms and call for reinforcements that in combination enable our immune system to combat invaders. Professor tenOever highlights how, during infection with SARS-CoV-2, whilst the call for reinforcements signal remains, the virus effectively turns down the call to arms signals, impairing the immune systems ability to respond effectively. These observations go some way towards explaining the physiology of the disease, and why for those who additionally have a compromised or weakened immune system, complications are being seen.

Take a look at our Exploring the Coronavirus Pandemic interview series to discover more expert insights relating to the COVID-19 outbreak. Visit our coronavirus hubpage to stay updated with all the latest news on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read more here:
Exploring the Coronavirus Pandemic: How the Host and Virus Interact - Technology Networks

Physiology

Stream some music and call me in the morning – yoursun.com

To boost your immune system, doctors recommend a healthy diet that embraces fruits and veggies and has no vitamin deficiencies. But how about a little Prokofiev?

Sound like quackery? Its not. Numerous studies, including a 2019 review in the journal Annual Research & Review in Biology, have found that both performing and listening to music can have a significant impact on the immune system. And as COVID-19 fosters global tension and fear, everyone is looking for ways to mitigate that stress and boost the immune system to ward off viral infections.

Certainly music has an impact on the brain, and anxiety and stress impact the immune system, said Andrew Levin, a neurologist at the University of Pittsburgh.

STRESS RELIEF

Dr. Levin, an amateur trumpet player who performs with several local ensembles, said hes not an expert in the ways music interacts with the brain. But it works for him.

Music is a part of my stress release paradigm, he said, adding that he hasnt had much time lately to play. We know that music can affect brain states, so I dont believe it is much of a stretch to say that music can indirectly affect our physiology, and there is research that supports this notion.

According to a 2013 review in the journal Brain Behavior and Immunity, the emotional and psychological effects of listening to music have direct impact on biomarkers and hormone levels. Immunoglobulin A, which plays a crucial role in immune functions, was cited as being particularly responsive to music. There is also general consensus among researchers that listening to music reduces cortisol levels, with one 2007 study in the Journal of Music Therapy by A.J. Ferrer stating that music can be as effective as diazepam in reducing vital signs of anxiety.

DOES THE SONG MATTER?

So, does it matter what sort of music youre listening to?

It does, but only whether you like the song. Prior associations and relationships with different types of music affect how your body responds. In general, research indicates that relaxing music (i.e. slower tempo, peaceful music) is better for calming frayed nerves, decreasing blood pressure and respiration and settling the heart rate.

Curiously, while major music streaming companies including Spotify and Bandcamp report dips in usage during the pandemic, classical music streaming has seen a bump, along with folk and childrens music.

GOOD VIBES

A report by the classical music streaming service Primephonic states that listeners habits have shifted from early morning and evening listening to business hours. Listening during lunch hour has doubled, and countries shut down the longest due to COVID-19 have seen up to a 50% increase in listening time.

This music provides hope, Primephonic CEO Thomas Steffens said in a phone call from the Netherlands.

He also said the rate of increase for new subscriptions is much higher than it was a month ago, even though Primephonic is marketing less.

The increase is a mixture of people who already like classical listening more and new listeners trying out the genre, like how many people are now trying new recipes, Steffens said.

Idagio, another classical music streaming service, also reports increased usage. Orchestras and opera houses around the country are streaming video performances and drawing millions of viewers. On Easter, Italian opera singer Andrea Bocelli sang a selection of hymns in an empty cathedral in Milan. By the next evening, the performance had garnered more than 30 million views on YouTube.

Noah Potvin, a professor of music therapy at Duquesne University, said classical musics cultural associations include relaxation and refinement and a certain health image, and this is likely driving listeners to the genre.

Think of any Lexus or Mercedes commercial with soaring classical melodies, he said. That sense of security and peace is attractive right now.

Potvin is skeptical of some of the research linking music with the immune system, questioning whether its healthy to use music or any other tool to suppress anxiety.

The research is superficial, though I dont mean that in a pejorative way, he said. I think the information we have is valuable, but we need to go deeper.

Music therapists use music to treat acute anxiety and stress, but Potvin said a more valuable use is exploring how music can help listeners work through anxiety and stress instead of simply covering over such sensations, which can be counterproductive. Using music for progressive muscle relaxation is a common technique at the moment, he said.

Listening to music is not a cure-all. Its another example of the much-discussed mind-body connection that has so captured the public consciousness in recent years, which deals with how emotional and mental health have physical outcomes.

Im a skeptic by nature, so when I first heard of the mind-body connection I thought it was new-age woo-woo, Levin said. However, the more I learned about human physiology, and in particular neurophysiology and neurology, I became increasingly convinced that we actually underestimate how profound this connection is.

See the original post here:
Stream some music and call me in the morning - yoursun.com