Connect with us

Health

Science Amid Chaos: What Worked During the Pandemic? What Failed?

Published

on

Science Amid Chaos: What Worked During the Pandemic? What Failed?

Until 2020, few Americans needed to think about how viruses spread or how the human immune system works. The pandemic offered a painful crash course. Sometimes, it seemed that the science was evolving as quickly as the virus itself.

So The New York Times asked experts to revisit the nightmare. Of the most significant public health measures introduced during Covid, which have held up scientifically, and which turned out to be wrongheaded?

The question is particularly important now, because pandemics that could upend American lives are inevitable. One candidate has already surfaced: bird flu.

Perhaps the biggest lesson learned, several experts said, is that recommendations during any pandemic are necessarily based on emerging and incomplete information. But during Covid, federal agencies often projected more confidence in their assessments than was warranted.

Next time, the scientists said, officials should be more forthright about the uncertainties and prepare the public for guidance that may shift as the threat comes into clearer focus.

Advertisement

Rather than promote preventive measures as infallible solutions, they should also acknowledge that no single intervention is perfect — though many imperfect measures can build a bulwark.

If you venture out in a “huge, heavy rainstorm, your umbrella alone is not going to keep you from getting wet,” said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne viruses at Virginia Tech.

“You need your umbrella; you need your boots; you need your waterproof pants and jacket; and you would probably try to avoid the puddles,” she said.

A victory, but officials oversold the benefits at first.

The mRNA vaccines were, in a sense, victims of their own unexpected success in clinical trials in 2020. Those results were spectacular: The shots warded off symptomatic illness caused by the original version of the coronavirus at miraculous rates.

Advertisement

But government officials had to walk back their enthusiasm as breakthrough infections with the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021. Americans were told to get boosters. Then again, and again.

Federal health officials should have acknowledged at the start that the long-term effectiveness was unknown, said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.

Mistrust over the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines is now taking a toll on other immunizations, including those targeting childhood diseases like measles.

“Making claims early on that this was going to prevent all infections was, I think, a little bit of an overpromise” that eventually undermined public trust, said Saskia Popescu, an infection prevention expert at the University of Maryland.

Still, the vaccines saved an estimated 14 million lives just in the first year after their introduction.

Advertisement

Surfaces were not the problem. Indoor air was.

Disagreements among scientists about how the coronavirus traveled had profound ramifications for how Americans were told to protect themselves.

Early on, health officials insisted that the virus was spread through large droplets that were coughed or sneezed out by an infected person onto other people or objects. The “fomite” theory led to protocols that made little sense in retrospect.

Remember the plexiglass barriers during the Presidential debates? The face shields? Schools closed for cleaning days midway through the week. People were scrubbing down groceries and mail.

“The whole hygiene theater was terribly unfortunate,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota. It wasted millions of dollars and gave people a false sense of security.

Advertisement

Health agencies took months to admit that the virus was carried aloft by tiny droplets, called aerosols, that could be exhaled, traveling long distances indoors. Sadly, that insight initially led to another overreaction.

Some states closed down beaches and parks, and forbade interactions outdoors, even though “there’s good scientific evidence that outdoor events are lower risk,” Dr. Dean said.

Eventually, understanding that the virus was primarily floating indoors prompted the Biden administration to earmark funds for improved ventilation in schools.

It worked if you used the right masks, correctly.

As the pandemic spread in the United States, masking morphed from a public health intervention into a cultural flashpoint.

Advertisement

Assuming that the coronavirus traveled like the flu and worried that hospitals might not have enough resources, federal heath officials at first told the public that masks were not needed.

That advice was suddenly reversed once scientists learned that the coronavirus was airborne. Even so, officials initially recommended cloth masks — which are not very effective at keeping out airborne viruses — and did not endorse more protective N95 respirators until January 2022, well after much of the public had stopped using cloth masks.

Dozens of studies have shown that when used correctly and consistently, N95 masks or their equivalents can prevent infected people from spreading the virus and protect wearers from contracting it.

Unfortunately, several flawed studies and the politics of personal freedom created a culture war surrounding the use of masks, especially by children, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

In the event of another respiratory outbreak, “I feel quite anxious that a whole constituency has already discarded masks,” he said.

Advertisement

Children in Asia routinely wear masks, especially during respiratory virus and allergy seasons, some experts noted.

“I wish we could infuse more infection prevention into especially elementary schools during respiratory virus season,” Dr. Popescu said. “It seemed like a really great way to get children back in schools.”

A chimera. We never got there.

For nearly two years after the pandemic began, experts talked of reaching herd immunity once enough of the population had acquired protection either by being ill or getting vaccinated.

That was a mistake, experts said. Herd immunity is only possible if immunity is sterilizing — meaning it prevents reinfections — and lifelong. Immunity to most viruses is neither.

Advertisement

Seasonal coronaviruses change rapidly enough that people undergo repeated infections throughout their lives, said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who insisted early on that the new coronavirus might also cause reinfections.

Once vaccines arrived, officials at first presented the shots as a way to stay safe from the virus forever, rather than as a means to lessen the severity of infections.

“There was a lot of confusion and misconceptions about herd immunity — that the toothpaste was going back in the tube somehow,” Dr. Dean said.

Necessary at first. Questionable as time went on.

Few aspects of the pandemic provoke as much rancor as school closures. In many parts of the country, test scores never recovered and absenteeism has become an intractable problem.

Advertisement

But experts said it was the right decision to close schools in the spring of 2020, when a poorly understood pathogen was sweeping across the country. Ideally, schools would have reopened that fall, but with measures — improved ventilation, testing, masks — to mitigate the risks.

“And of course, we didn’t really have any of those things,” Dr. Hanage said.

By early fall in 2020, it was clear that schoolchildren were not driving community transmission significantly. Still, many schools stayed closed for months longer than they needed to, forcing children to muddle through remote learning and causing some to fall irrevocably behind.

“It’s a really difficult one to Monday-morning quarterback,” Dr. Shaman said.

“We don’t have the counterfactual, that alternative scenario to see how it really would have played out.”

Advertisement

If bird flu turns into a pandemic, it would be foolish to base school policies on how the coronavirus behaved, he and others warned. Other respiratory viruses, like the flu, tend to be deadlier among young children and older adults.

“We have every reason to think that a future flu pandemic would be far more dangerous to young people than Covid was,” Dr. Hanage said. “I think we should talk about what we could do to mitigate transmission in schools.”

They slowed the virus, but the price was high.

The pandemic destroyed local businesses, sent unemployment rates soaring and increased household debt. Many people now feel that lockdowns were to blame for much of the damage — and that their harms outweighed any benefits.

Many scientists see it differently. “The economy got shut down by just the pure force of the pandemic,” said Dr. Osterholm.

Advertisement

No American state’s policies neared the strictness of those in China, India, Italy or Jordan — where people were not allowed to leave home at all — and much of the work force and societal activities continued because they were deemed essential, he noted.

By the end of May 2020, indoor dining and religious services had resumed in much of the country, if they had been paused at all, although many cities continued to institute temporary bans as virus levels rose and fell.

The shutdowns may have been unpopular in part because they were introduced with no clear explanation or end in sight.

Instead, Dr. Osterholm said, health officials could have instituted a “snow day” concept. People stayed home when hospitals were overwhelmed, as they do when roads are snowed under, but their behavior returned to normal when the situation eased.

The shutdowns eased the burden on hospitals and slowed the transmission of the virus, buying time to develop a vaccine. Studies from multiple other countries have also shown that stay-at-home orders and restrictions on mass gatherings were the most effective measures for curbing transmission of the virus within communities.

Advertisement

“Whatever people did in 2020, before folks were vaccinated, saved millions of lives,” Dr. Hanage said. “If we had done nothing, truly done nothing at all, things would have been much, much worse.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Health

Dance Your Way to Weight Loss: Burn Fat and Have Fun in 30 Minutes!

Published

on

Dance Your Way to Weight Loss: Burn Fat and Have Fun in 30 Minutes!


Advertisement


Dance Your Way to Weight Loss: Burn Fat and Have Fun in 30 Minutes! | Woman’s World




















Advertisement














Advertisement


Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.


Use escape to exit the menu.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Health

‘I’m a pediatrician: I get these top 11 questions about measles’

Published

on

‘I’m a pediatrician: I get these top 11 questions about measles’

As measles cases continue to spread throughout the U.S. — with 12 states reporting official outbreaks, according to the latest CDC data — concern is growing among high-risk groups.

Children under the age of 5 are most vulnerable to measles, health experts confirm.

The CDC recommends that children receive two doses of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, starting with the first dose at 12 to 15 months of age, and a second dose at 4 through 6 years of age. 

MEASLES OUTBREAKS EMERGE ACROSS US: SEE WHICH STATES HAVE REPORTED CASES

That means children under 5 may not have full protection.

Advertisement

As measles cases continue to spread throughout the U.S. — with 12 states reporting official outbreaks, according to the latest CDC data — concern is growing among high-risk groups. (iStock)

Allison Croucher, DO, a pediatrician and doctor of osteopathic medicine with Duly Health and Care in Illinois, said she frequently gets questions from concerned parents looking to protect their children from the highly contagious virus.

Chroucher shared some of the most common inquiries she receives, along with her responses.

1. Should I be worried about measles where I live or where I’m traveling to?

Measles cases have been reported in 20 states so far (according to the CDC): Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Baby with measles

Children under the age of 5 are most vulnerable to measles, health experts confirm. (iStock)

Even if you do not live in one of those areas, keep a close eye on local health alerts, since the disease is rapidly evolving. 

Advertisement

Your state’s Department of Health website, which should end in “.gov,” is a great place to start. If you plan on traveling to an area with reported cases, be sure to seek guidance from your doctor beforehand.

2. How do I know if my child is fully vaccinated?

A child is considered fully vaccinated for measles if they have received two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine at least four weeks apart. 

The first dose is typically given to children between 12 and 15 months old, followed by the second at four to six years.

Child at pediatrician

In the early stages, symptoms to watch out for include fever, cough, runny nose, and red, irritated eyes.  (iStock)

3. Can my infant get the vaccine early? 

In certain cases, yes. Infants who are high-risk or traveling to areas with active cases may be eligible to get the MMR vaccine between six months and 12 months of age. This depends on individual circumstances, so it’s important to talk with your pediatrician. 

Keep in mind that an early dose doesn’t count on the regular vaccination schedule — your child will still need two additional doses after their first birthday.

Advertisement

ANOTHER STATE CONFIRMS MEASLES CASE WITH INFECTED CHILD ITS FIRST OF YEAR

4. What if my infant is too young to get the MMR vaccine? 

If your infant is too young for the vaccine, it’s important to take extra precautions to limit their exposure to others who are or might be ill. Don’t be afraid to decline travel or gatherings — you have every right to protect your child’s health.

5. How early can my child get their second MMR vaccine? 

For children over one year, the second MMR dose can be given as early as four weeks after the first. Once they’ve received both doses, children are considered fully vaccinated and don’t require any additional doses.

“One to three of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die due to complications from the disease.”

6. We have been around other people who recently traveled. What symptoms should we watch for?  

In the early stages, symptoms to watch out for include fever, cough, runny nose, and red, irritated eyes. 

Advertisement

These symptoms usually appear seven to 14 days after initial exposure. 

7. My child is showing signs of a cold. Could this be early-stage measles?

It’s not always easy to tell, since measles shares symptoms with many other illnesses. One key differentiator is that children with measles typically display very high fevers, around 104°F. They also tend to be very fussy. 

Around the second or third day of symptoms, many patients develop small, bluish-white spots on their inner cheeks, referred to as Koplik spots — though not every child will develop these spots. The telltale red rash typically develops three to five days into the illness.

Measles outbreak across America

A child is considered fully vaccinated for measles if they have received two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine at least four weeks apart.  (Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

8. What does the measles rash look like? 

This rash typically starts three to five days after the initial symptoms. It begins as small spots on the face near the hairline, then spreads downwards and can cover the entire body.

Advertisement

9. Why is measles dangerous? 

Measles can have many complications, ranging from mild to severe. About one in 10 people will develop ear infections or diarrhea. 

About one in five unvaccinated children with measles will require hospitalization. Up to one in 20 children will contract pneumonia, which is the most common cause of death from the disease. 

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

About one in 1,000 children will develop encephalitis, or inflammation and swelling of the brain. This can lead to seizures, lifelong disability or even death. In all, one to three of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die due to complications from the disease.

10. Why aren’t some people getting their kids the MMR vaccine? 

There is a growing amount of misinformation and disinformation circulating about vaccines, which has led some parents to delay or skip them altogether. 

Advertisement

The MMR vaccine has been safely administered to millions of people and has an excellent safety record — and research has repeatedly debunked the myth that the vaccine is linked to autism. 

For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health

11. What should I do if I think my child might have the measles? 

Don’t wait — contact your doctor right away. They can guide you through the next steps.

The above questions and answers were provided by Allison Croucher, DO, a pediatrician and doctor of osteopathic medicine with Duly Health and Care in Illinois.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Health

‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal

Published

on

‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal

A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested without evidence that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures.

Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as “vaguely threatening” in an interview with The New York Times.

At least three other journals have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of the administration.

His letters accused the publications of being “partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles.

Do they accept submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints”? What do they do if the authors whose work they published “may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others”?

Advertisement

News of the letter to N.E.J.M. was reported earlier by STAT, a health news outlet.

Mr. Martin also asked about the role of the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, and the agency’s role “in the development of submitted articles.”

Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the information published in reputable medical journals like N.E.J.M. is broadly protected by the Constitution.

In most cases, journals have the same robust rights that apply to newspapers — the strongest the Constitution provides, she added.

“There is no basis to say that anything other than the most stringent First Amendment protections apply to medical journals,” she said. “It appears aimed at creating a type of fear and chill that will have effects on people’s expression — that’s a constitutional concern.”

Advertisement

It’s unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to target. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Our job is to evaluate science and evaluate it in an unbiased fashion,” Dr. Rubin said. “That’s what we do and I think we do it well. The questions seem to suggest that there’s some bias in what we do — that’s where the vaguely threatening part comes in.”

Jeremy Berg, the former editor in chief of the journal Science, said he thought the letters were designed to “intimidate journals to bend over backward” to publish papers that align with the administration’s beliefs — on climate change and vaccines, for example — even if the quality of the research is poor.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary, singled out N.E.J.M in an interview with the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year as an example of a medical journal that has participated in “lying to the public” and “retracting the real science.”

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to comment on whether Mr. Kennedy had any involvement with the letters.

Advertisement

In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he would seek to prosecute medical journals under federal anti-corruption laws.

“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of N.I.H., has vigorously criticized the leadership of scientific journals. Recently he co-founded a new journal as an alternative to traditional scientific publishing. It has published contrarian views on Covid.

Other prominent journals said they had not received the letter. On Friday, The Lancet, which is based in Britain, published a scathing editorial in solidarity, calling the letters “an obvious ruse to strike fear into journals and impinge on their right to independent editorial oversight.”

“Science and medicine in the U.S.A. are being violently dismembered while the world watches,” the editorial said.

Advertisement

One of Mr. Martin’s letters was sent to the journal Chest, a low-profile publication that publishes highly technical studies on topics like lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters.

They declined to speak publicly for fear of retribution from the Trump administration.

Dr. Rubin said he, too, was worried about political backlash. Scientific journals rely on public funds in several indirect ways — for example, universities often use federal grants to pay for subscriptions.

“Are we concerned? Of course we are,” he said. “But we want to do the right thing.”

Mr. Martin gave the journals until May 2 to respond to his questions. N.E.J.M. has already responded to Mr. Martin with a statement that pushes back against his characterization of the journal.

Advertisement

“We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish,” the statement read. “We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression.”

This is not the N.E.J.M’s first brush with a Trump administration.

In 2020, the journal published an editorial condemning the president’s response to the pandemic — the first time the journal had supported or condemned a political candidate in its 208-year history.

Dr. Rubin said he doubted Mr. Martin’s letter was related to the editorial. The journal Chest didn’t write about Trump’s first term yet received a letter, he noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending