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.”

Health

GLP-1s Don’t Work for Everyone: What To Know if You’re Not Seeing Results

Published

on

GLP-1s Don’t Work for Everyone: What To Know if You’re Not Seeing Results


Advertisement





GLP-1 Not Working? Here’s Why and Alternatives That Can Help




















Advertisement





Advertisement


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


Use escape to exit the menu.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Health

Common eating habit may trigger premature immune system aging, study finds

Published

on

Common eating habit may trigger premature immune system aging, study finds

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Eating too much salt has long been linked to high blood pressure, but new research suggests it could trick the immune system into prematurely aging the blood vessels.

A preclinical study recently published in the Journal of the American Heart Association has identified a biological chain reaction that links a salty diet to cardiovascular decay.

Scientists at the University of South Alabama observed that mice on a high-salt diet experienced rapid deterioration in their blood vessel function.

HIGH SALT INTAKE LINKED TO FASTER MEMORY DECLINE IN ONE GROUP, STUDY FINDS

Advertisement

After just four weeks of high sodium intake, the small arteries responsible for regulating blood flow lost their ability to relax, according to a press release.

The team found that the cells lining these vessels had entered a state of cellular senescence, a form of premature cellular aging in which cells stop dividing and release a mix of inflammatory signals that can damage surrounding tissue.

Excess salt has long been linked to high blood pressure, but a new study goes deeper into its effects on the cardiovascular system. (iStock)

The researchers tried to replicate this damage by exposing blood vessel cells directly to salt in a laboratory dish, but the cells showed no harmful effects.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

Advertisement

This suggests that salt isn’t directly causing damage to the vascular lining but that the real culprit may be the body’s own defense mechanism, the researchers noted.

Excess salt may trigger the immune system to release a molecule called interleukin-16 (IL-16), which acts as a messenger that instructs blood vessel cells to grow old before their time, according to the study.

Excess salt may trigger the immune system to release a molecule called interleukin-16, which acts as a messenger that instructs blood vessel cells to grow old before their time, according to the study. (iStock)

Once these cells age, they fail to produce nitric oxide, the essential gas that tells arteries to dilate and stay flexible.

To test whether this process could be reversed, the team turned to a class of experimental drugs known as senolytics.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Using a cancer medication called navitoclax, which selectively clears out aged and dysfunctional cells, the researchers were able to restore nearly normal blood vessel function in the salt-fed mice, the release stated.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ.

By removing the decaying cells created by the high-salt diet, the drug allowed the remaining healthy tissue to maintain its elasticity and respond correctly to blood flow demands.

Excess salt may trigger the immune system into stopping the cells from dividing, the study suggests. (iStock)

Advertisement

The study did have some limitations. The transition from mouse models to human treatment remains a significant hurdle, the team cautioned.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

Senolytic drugs like navitoclax are still being studied for safety, and the team emphasized that previous trials have shown mixed results regarding their impact on artery plaque.

Additionally, the researchers have not yet confirmed whether the same IL-16 pathway is the primary driver of vascular aging in humans.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Health

Healthy diets spark lung cancer risk in non-smokers as pesticides loom

Published

on

Healthy diets spark lung cancer risk in non-smokers as pesticides loom

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables was found to have a surprising link to lung cancer among younger non-smokers, early research suggests.

The observational study, led by Jorge Nieva, M.D., of the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at Keck Medicine, was presented this month at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in San Diego. It has not yet been peer-reviewed. 

Researchers looked at dietary, smoking and demographic data for 187 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer at age 50 or younger. 

PANCREATIC CANCER PATIENT SURVIVAL DOUBLED WITH HIGH DOSE OF COMMON VITAMIN, STUDY FINDS

Advertisement

They found that among non-smokers, there was a link between healthier-than-average diets – rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains – and the chance of lung cancer development.

Young lung cancer patients ate more servings of dark green vegetables, legumes and whole grains compared to the average U.S. adult, the researchers found.

Eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables was found to have a surprising link to lung cancer among younger non-smokers, early research suggests. (iStock)

The researchers hypothesized that pesticides applied to conventionally grown produce could be a possible factor in the disease association.

“Commercially produced (non-organic) fruits, vegetables and whole grains are more likely to be associated with a higher residue of pesticides than dairy, meat and many processed foods,” according to Nieva. He also noted that agricultural workers exposed to pesticides tend to have higher rates of lung cancer.

Advertisement

HIDDEN VIRUS INSIDE GUT BACTERIA LINKED TO DOUBLED COLORECTAL CANCER RISK, STUDY FINDS

“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking,” Nieva told Fox News Digital.

The disease is becoming more common in non-smokers 50 and younger, especially women – despite the fact that smoking rates have been falling for decades, the researcher noted.

The researchers hypothesized that pesticides applied to conventionally grown produce could be a possible factor in the disease association. (iStock)

“These patients tend to have eaten much healthier diets before their diagnosis than the average American,” he went on. “We need to support research into understanding why Americans – and women in particular – who no longer smoke very much are still having lung cancer,” he said.

Advertisement

DEATHS FROM ONE TYPE OF CANCER ARE SURGING AMONG YOUNGER ADULTS WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES

The study did have some limitations, Nieva acknowledged, primarily that it relied on survey data and was limited by the participants’ memories of their food intake.  

“Also, the survey participants were self-selected, and this could have biased the findings,” he told Fox News Digital.

“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking.”

The researchers did not test specific foods for pesticides, relying instead on average pesticide levels for certain types of food. Looking ahead, they plan to test patients’ blood and urine samples to directly measure pesticide levels, Nieva said.

Advertisement

Although the study shows only an association and does not prove that pesticides caused lung cancer, Nieva recommends that people wash their produce before eating and choose organic foods whenever possible.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

“This work represents a critical step toward identifying modifiable environmental factors that may contribute to lung cancer in young adults,” said Nieva. “Our hope is that these insights can guide both public health recommendations and future investigation into lung cancer prevention.”  

“It is possible that the increased lung cancer risk could be due to pesticide exposure in whole farmed foods, but is by no means certain,” a doctor said. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst, said the study is “interesting,” but that it “raises far more questions than it answers.”

Advertisement

“It is a small study (around 150) and observational, so no proof,” the doctor, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

“It is possible that the increased lung cancer risk could be due to pesticide exposure in whole farmed foods, but it is by no means certain,” Siegel went on. “How much exposure is needed? How much of it gets into food and in which areas? This requires much further study.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kayla Nichols, communications director for Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, a distributed global network, said the organization agrees with the study’s conclusion that more research should be done on the rise in lung cancer, particularly in individuals eating diets higher in produce and fiber.

Advertisement

“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking,” the researcher told Fox News Digital. (iStock)

“There is a bounty of existing research that already links pesticide exposure to increased risk of multiple types of cancers,” Nichols, who was also not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. She called for more research on chronic, low-level exposures to pesticides, as well as more effective policies to protect the public from pesticide residues on food.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, as well as industry partners including AstraZeneca and Genentech, among others.

Fox News Digital reached out to several pesticide companies and trade groups for comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending