Month: March 2022

Home / Month: March 2022

NINE GAA GAMES are live on TV this week as part of a hectic week of action.

Mayo and Tyrone face off next Saturday night.

Source: Laszlo Geczo/INPHO

On Saturday the inter-county action commences with the football league tie involving Tyrone against Mayo, a repeat of last year’s All-Ireland decider, and the hurling league clash of Down against Kerry.

Advertisement

There’s also a ladies football league semi-final double-header with Dublin taking on Donegal and Meath facing Mayo.

Then Sunday’s league games involving Kilkenny against Waterford in hurling, while a pair of football games take place with Armagh playing Kerry and Dublin meeting Donegal.

Dublin meet Donegal on Saturday.

Source: John McVitty/INPHO

On Sunday, TG4 will trial a ‘picture in picture’ feature during their live coverage of Kilkenny v Waterford. These will show cutaways that feature the major moments from two key other Division 1 hurling matches, Limerick v Offaly and Laois v Dublin.

Before that Croke Park is the focus on Thursday for the All-Ireland senior colleges football and hurling finals, with the prestigious Hogan Cup and Croke Cup titles on offer. There are Kerry, Kildare, Limerick and Kilkenny sides all chasing glory in the deciders as St Brendan’s Killarney take on Naas CBS, before Ardscoil Rís play St Kieran’s Kilkenny.

SEE SPORT
DIFFERENTLY

Get closer to the stories that matter with exclusive analysis, insight and debate in The42 Membership.

Become a Member

Here’s what’s in store:

Thursday

  • 2pm: TG4 – St Brendan’s Killarney v Naas CBS – Hogan Cup final.
  • 4pm: TG4 – St Kieran’s Kilkenny v Ardscoil Rís – Croke Cup final.

Saturday

  • 1pm: TG4 – Dublin v Donegal – Division 1 ladies football league semi-final.
  • 2pm: BBC Sport NI site – Down v Kerry – Division 2 hurling league.
  • 3pm: TG4 – Meath v Mayo – Division 1 ladies football league semi-final.
  • 5.45pm: RTÉ 2 – Tyrone v Mayo – Division 1 football league.

Sunday

  • 1.45pm: TG4 – Kilkenny v Waterford – Division 1 hurling league.
  • 2pm: TG4 app – Armagh v Kerry – Division 1 football league…(Deferred coverage on TG4 at 5.35pm)
  • 3.45pm: TG4 – Dublin v Donegal – Division 1 football league.

– Originally published at 12:37

The42 is on Instagram! Tap the button below on your phone to follow us!

Click Here:

With the news Wednesday from Pfizer/BioNTech that preliminary data suggests their vaccine is effective and safe in youth ages 12 to 15, Covid-19 shots for those under 16 seem like they might finally be on the horizon. But the big question of whether most kids will be able to get vaccinated before they head back to school in the fall remains.

Children were left out of the earliest vaccine trials as pharmaceutical companies prioritized adults at higher risk of hospitalization and death. Which made sense: The disease has killed approximately 270 children in the US, compared with more than 424,000 people age 65 and older.

But many kids have caught the virus, with about 3.4 million pediatric Covid-19 cases reported as of March 25 — likely a substantial undercount because these cases are often mild or asymptomatic. There have also been more than 2,600 children in the US who have gotten a severe inflammatory syndrome following infection, and many reports of children with persistent, debilitating symptoms after even a mild Covid-19 illness.

Not to mention the broader impact of the pandemic on children’s lives, with less social contact with peers and extended family members, increased risk of abuse at home, and major disruptions to education that is widening the existing chasms of inequality.

Because of these hardships, the National Academy of Medicine, in its fall 2020 recommendations for vaccine allocation, said that children should be in phase 3 of recipients — which would fall before the general adult population and in the same group as many essential workers. But this clearly did not come to pass.

Importantly, we have yet to formally ensure the vaccines are effective and safe in children, whose immune systems can work slightly differently than adults’. (Pfizer/BioNTech’s new data is preliminary and has not yet been peer-reviewed.)

But vaccine companies are racing to gather more data, and the FDA has okayed Pfizer and Moderna to start new studies of their vaccines in kids 11 and younger. Moderna has a trial underway and expects initial results in the coming months. Johnson & Johnson is still in the planning phases.

Pfizer/BioNTech say they’ll submit their new findings on adolescents to the US Food and Drug Administration in the weeks ahead in hopes of having their vaccine authorized for ages 12 and up. (It is currently authorized for emergency use for those 16 and older; Moderna and Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be given to those 18 and up.)

Here’s where we are in learning about the Covid-19 vaccines in children and teens — and what parents, teachers, and family members should do to keep the virus in check before they are ready.

Why most kids can’t get vaccinated for Covid-19 yet

The prospects for kids getting vaccinated are looking good. In addition to the new early Pfizer information on kids 12 to 15, we also have that reassuring pile of data about the vaccines’ safety and efficacy in adults. Nevertheless, several factors make these vaccine trials in children slightly more challenging.

“Since the infection is a mild one in the majority of children, the bar for a Covid-19 vaccine to be safe in children is even higher,” Kristin Moffitt, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital, wrote in an email to Vox. “This is different than an experimental medication designed to treat a terrible disease, where side effects might be tolerated. A vaccine designed to prevent infection must be safe.”

We also cannot assume the vaccines will behave in children exactly as they do in adults. And this is especially true of younger children, who haven’t yet been included in completed trials.

Click Here:

“Children’s immune systems sometimes act slightly differently than adults’ when they’re given the same vaccine,” says James Campbell, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine who also runs clinical trials at the school’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health. This is because kids’ immune systems are busy maturing from before birth through mid-childhood.

And although most vaccines work equally well in adults and children, some, such as the pneumococcal vaccine, aren’t effective in children under age 2. (That vaccine, however, is of a different type than the ones authorized for Covid-19.) Others need to be given in different amounts or spaced differently when given to younger kids versus adults.

Most experts do expect younger children will respond well to Covid-19 vaccines. But even then, they’ll still want to find the optimal doses and dose spacing for these immunizations at each age group. This might be different for, say, a 6-month-old than for a 16-year-old.

How scientists are testing Covid-19 vaccines in children

To learn how vaccines work best in kids, scientists usually study them in different age groups. For Covid-19, researchers are working backward down the age ladder.

Starting trials in teenagers makes sense for a number of reasons. First, “adolescents are more likely to experience a similar safety profile and immune response as adults than very young children,” Moffitt explained.

Second, this age group is more likely than younger children (except for infants) to become severely ill and die of the disease.

And, third, data so far suggests that this age group has been more responsible for spreading the virus than younger children, Moffitt explained.

So after studies have gathered enough data from adolescents, researchers can be more confident testing the vaccine in younger age groups. “A vaccine that was safe in 12-year-olds is more likely to be safe in 6- to 11-year-olds than one that has only been tested in adults,” Moffitt said. Likewise, “a vaccine that’s safe in school-aged children is more likely to be safe in toddlers.”

For the youngest children, figuring out not only the best dosing but also when to administer the test vaccines could be tricky.

“Infants and toddlers have a very busy vaccine schedule,” says Campbell, who also helped develop the National Institutes of Health’s pediatric vaccine trial protocols. So researchers need to figure out if they are going to lump the trial Covid-19 vaccine doses in with regular vaccine visits (which can generate their own passing side effects) or administer them between other vaccines (which sometimes fall just a month apart for newborns).

One bit of luck is that children’s vaccine trials can be much smaller than the adult trials. In addition to seeing who among participants naturally got sick with Covid-19, adult vaccine trials have been measuring immune response to the vaccines (by looking for antibodies in the blood).

This immune response data provides a reliable shortcut for trials in kids, showing researchers what a successful immune response to the vaccine looks like. So pediatric studies are looking for similar responses in children to assess whether it is effective in preventing Covid-19, rather than having to wait for dozens of them to come down with the disease.

So whereas each phase 3 adult trial had to enroll tens of thousands of people to find enough naturally occurring infections in a few short months, “as we are only measuring immune response in adolescents, we can get those answers with many less participants,” Robert Frenck, director of vaccine research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, wrote to Vox in an email. As such, the companies can do studies at less than a tenth of the scale.

The new Pfizer/BioNTech trial tested the vaccine against a placebo in 2,260 adolescents. In those who received the shot, the companies say a robust antibody response was seen, equating, they say, with 100 percent efficacy — an even better result than in those ages 16 to 25, the company reported in a press release. The company said no safety concerns emerged and side effects were similar to those seen in young adults.

In addition to apparently universal antibody coverage, the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy also seemed to play out in the real world. Eighteen of the adolescents in the placebo group ended up getting Covid-19, but none in the vaccinated group.

And the FDA has cleared vaccine makers to rapidly expand testing in younger ages. Pfizer and Moderna both have early-stage studies underway in participants as young as 6 months. Pfizer is structuring research based on age group cohorts: 5 to 11 years, 2 to 5 years, and 6 months to 2 years, testing different doses in each.

The first experimental shots were given to kids in the 5- to 11-year-old age group last week, and they plan to give the first ones in the 2- to 5-year group next week, the company reported.

Moderna announced earlier this month that it has also started administering the vaccine to its pediatric trial participants younger than 12. Although early data is expected by this summer, it plans to also follow kids for a year after their shots to track longer-term efficacy and safety.

Will kids get the Covid-19 vaccine before the next school year?

Even if a Covid-19 vaccine hasn’t been authorized or distributed for most children by the end of the summer, it might still be possible to safely send students back to school. “If you are in a situation where you have drastically reduced mortality, you have covered the most vulnerable people, you have vaccinated the teachers, and have scaled up targeted testing for schoolchildren, you have a viable way of opening schools,” says Saad Omer, an infectious disease specialist at the Yale School of Medicine.

And getting kids safely back to in-person learning will be incredibly important to prevent further disparities from emerging and get education back on track. For younger children especially, they “have a shorter window for development, where if they miss it, there are long-term consequences,” says Omer, who was on the National Academy of Medicine committee that recommended children for phase 3 vaccine priority.

But the ultimate goal will be to have children vaccinated against the virus, and as soon as safely possible. So the leading vaccine companies are working hard to get the necessary approvals. Pfizer says it hopes it will be possible “to vaccinate this age group before the start of the next school year,” CEO Albert Bourla said in a press statement.

And the CDC is paying attention. Its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “is closely monitoring clinical trials in children and adolescents,” according to a December paper.

Many experts are optimistic that vaccines will be authorized for children as solid data comes in. “I think a good antibody response — with a good safety profile — in kids will be sufficient to have a vaccine candidate licensed,” said Frenck, who has worked on the Pfizer vaccine trials of 12- to 15-year-olds.

Omer agrees. “You don’t have to complete the trial. Even initial preliminary data may suffice.”

But it is still unclear if most children under the age of 16 will be able to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. And the order in which children will be eligible for an approved vaccine will likely follow the sequence of trials, with adolescents coming first. “If we can at least get down to the older kids, it would be great,” Campbell says.

One big question still hangs in the balance about the utility of vaccinating all children, however. A lot of the impetus to vaccinate children has been not just to reduce incidence of the disease in that group but also to reduce kids’ role in spreading the disease. However, we still don’t have thorough information on how well the vaccines do this.

Early data suggests the vaccines might reduce the rate at which people carry the virus without getting sick. But we are still waiting for more details from the adult studies. “The most likely scenario is that you’re going to get the best protection against the most severe disease, 95 percent protection against all disease, and slightly lower protection against all infection,” Campbell says. (This thinking also helped inform the CDC’s March guidelines for fully vaccinated people.)

Even this level of protection, however, could go a long way in improving children’s lives — and those of their parents. It could allow them to much more safely play with friends and participate in more normal activities.

What should we do before a Covid-19 vaccine is available for kids?

Covid-19 continues to spread, with new worrying upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in several regions across the country. And kids remain vulnerable to getting the illness and to spreading it to others of any age.

So instead of having chickenpox-style Covid-19 exposure parties for kids, which can be dangerous, public health experts advocate continued vigilance against the virus. The CDC recommends children follow similar guidelines to unvaccinated adults. They should wash their hands frequently, avoid or limit contact with unvaccinated people outside their household, avoid those at high risk for the illness, wear a mask in public starting at age 2, have high-touch surfaces and toys disinfected frequently, and avoid unnecessary travel.

But with the early encouraging news from the first Covid-19 vaccine kids trial, we have more reason to expect shots for kids will be coming.

In the meantime, there’s no time to waste in helping prepare pediatricians and families for the vaccines’ arrival for kids, Campbell says. A January survey by the National Parents Union found that only about 35 percent of parents would immediately immunize their children against the disease, and almost a quarter would not get the shots for them at all. If a vast number of kids aren’t vaccinated, they could become a reservoir for the virus, spurring future outbreaks.

But Campbell is hopeful that time and experience will help resolve some of this reluctance. By the time these shots are available for kids, in addition to strong results from pediatric studies, he hopes many of the current questions and wariness around the new vaccines will also be soothed by the months of success in adults.

Katherine Harmon Courage is a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and Octopus! Find her on Twitter at @KHCourage.

Last year, as then-President Donald Trump railed against Covid-19 lockdowns and called on states to reopen their economies, he claimed the shutdowns would lead to a spike in suicides: “You’re going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression. You’re going to lose people. You’re going to have suicides by the thousands.”

But new data suggests that the number of suicides actually decreased in the US last year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, suicides totaled fewer than 45,000 in 2020, down from about 47,500 in 2019 and more than 48,000 in 2018.

So far, this seems to be true globally. England saw no increase in suicides in the aftermath of lockdowns, Louis Appleby, a researcher on suicide and self-harm at the University of Manchester, wrote for the medical journal BMJ. The same seems to be true in other nations, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, and Sweden, based on data for the first few months of lockdowns around the globe.

“Our conclusions at this stage, however, should be cautious. These are early findings and may change,” Appleby wrote in BMJ. “Beneath the overall numbers there may be variations between demographic groups or geographical areas. After all, the impact of covid-19 itself has not been uniform across communities.”

Still, the news overall seems good.

Click Here:

Trump wasn’t alone in his concerns. For much of 2020, this was a popular argument among opponents of lockdowns — that the measures would lead to an increase in suicides. Various news articles have echoed the claim in some form, exemplified by the recent New York Times headline, “Suicide and Self-Harm: Bereaved Families Count the Costs of Lockdowns.”

It’s all wrapped up in an argument that lockdowns weren’t worth the costs. As Trump put it, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.”

The reality is lockdowns worked to contain the spread of Covid-19, based on studies from Health Affairs, The Lancet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and others. And experts now widely agree that it was the US’s move to reopen too quickly, fueled in part by Trump’s claims, that made the country one of the worst in the world for Covid-19 deaths.

That’s not to say the lockdowns were costless. The emotional anguish brought by isolation and lack of social contact, as well as the economic calamity of the last year, are both clear examples of the downsides to lockdowns — even if the measures were ultimately worth it in the face of a deadly pandemic.

According to one CDC study, self-reported mental distress increased in the early months of the pandemic (though it’s not clear if lockdowns were the cause).

Another category of “deaths of despair” — drug overdoses — also appeared to increase dramatically last year: The latest data shows there were more than 88,000 overdose deaths in the year through August 2020, up from nearly 70,000 in the same time period of 2019. It’s plausible that lockdowns fueled overdoses as people turned to drugs during isolation or as addiction treatment and harm reduction services closed down, though it’s also possible that the increase was driven by something else, like the continued spread of the dangerous synthetic opioid fentanyl in illicit drug markets.

There’s also genuine debate about how the lockdowns worked. Based on the more recent evidence, it seems like mass closings of schools were ultimately misguided — as children and schools ended up not being major vectors of the coronavirus’s spread. Meanwhile, the risky indoor spaces many states pushed to reopen quickly, like bars and restaurants, have proven to be significant sources of outbreaks. All of that suggests the US may have closed down the wrong places, while reopening the wrong places too.

At the very least, though, it seems lockdowns didn’t produce one of the bad effects people initially feared.

If you or anyone you know in the US is considering suicide or self-harm, or is anxious, depressed, upset, or needs to talk, you can call the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 1-800-273-8255, or text CRISIS to 741741 for free, confidential crisis counseling. Outside the US, the International Association for Suicide Prevention maintains a list of crisis hotlines and their respective phone numbers around the world.

For 17 years, cicadas do very little. They hang out in the ground, sucking sugar out of tree roots. Then, following this absurdly long hibernation, they emerge from the ground, sprout wings, make a ton of noise, have sex, and die within a few weeks. Their orphan progeny will then return to the ground and live the next 17 years in silence.

Over the next several weeks, billions of mid-Atlantic cicadas will hear the call of spring and emerge from their cozy bunkers. This year’s group, born in 2004, is known as Brood X. They’ll start their journey to the surface when soil temperatures reach around 64 degrees Fahrenheit.

While they’ll emerge in biblical numbers, they’ll be blanketing only a small slice of the country.

Cicadas appear every year on the East Coast, but it’s a different 17-year crew that wakes up each time. (There are some 13-year broods of cicadas in the Southeast, too.) Emerging in these humongous annual batches is likely an evolutionary strategy. There are so many cicadas all at once, predators (such as birds and small mammals) can’t make a meaningful dent in their numbers.

In sum, the broods lay claim to much of the eastern United States, stretching from New England to Oklahoma. You can see all of the US broods on the US Forest Service map below.

Brood X (shown in yellow) will be seen in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and eastern Tennessee.

And while their mating calls are loud and annoying, cicadas are one of nature’s beautiful mysteries: No one — not even Sir David Attenborough — knows how the cicadas are able to count to 17 years underground.

Click play on the video below to watch Attenborough seduce a male cicada by imitating the clicks a female makes. Enjoy!

Click Here:

Why you can’t compare Covid-19 vaccines

March 23, 2022 | News | No Comments

In the US, the first two available Covid-19 vaccines were those from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. Both vaccines have very high “efficacy rates” of around 95 percent. But the third vaccine introduced in the US, from Johnson & Johnson, has a much lower efficacy rate: just 66 percent.

Click Here:

Look at those numbers next to each other, and it’s natural to conclude that one of them is considerably worse. Why settle for 66 percent when you can have 95 percent? But that isn’t the right way to understand a vaccine’s efficacy rate, or to even understand what a vaccine does. And public health experts say that if you really want to know which vaccine is the best one, efficacy isn’t actually the most important number at all.

Watch the video above to learn more about how these numbers were calculated and why the “best” vaccine is the first one you can get. And read more from Vox’s Umair Irfan on why these efficacy numbers can be misleading.

You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. Subscribe for more.

This winter is brutal. The cold weather has made it hard to socialize outdoors, coronavirus variants are spreading, and the US is about to surpass half a million Covid-19 deaths. Many of us are feeling anxious about how we’re going to make it through the lonely, bleak weeks ahead.

I see a lot of people trying to cope with this anxiety by drumming up one-off solutions. Buy a fire pit! Better yet, buy a whole house! Those may be perfectly fine ideas, as far as they go — but I’d like to suggest a more effective way to think about reducing your suffering and increasing your happiness this winter.

Instead of thinking about the myriad negative feelings you want to avoid and the myriad things you can buy or do in service of that, think about a single organizing principle that is highly effective at generating positive feelings across the board: Shift your focus outward.

“Studies show that anything we can do to direct our attention off of ourselves and onto other people or other things is usually productive and makes us happier,” said Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside and author of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. “A lot of life’s problems are caused by too much self-focus and self-absorption, and we often focus too much on the negatives about ourselves.”

Rather than fixating on our inner worlds and woes, we can strive to promote what some psychologists call “small self.” Virginia Sturm, who directs the Clinical Affective Neuroscience lab at the University of California San Francisco, defines this as “a healthy sense of proportion between your own self and the bigger picture of the world around you.”

This easy-to-remember principle is like an emotional Swiss Army knife: Open it up and you’ll find a bunch of different practices that research shows can cut through mental distress. They’re useful anytime, and might be especially helpful during this difficult winter (though they’re certainly no panacea for broader problems like mass unemployment or a failed national pandemic response).

The practices involve cultivating different states — social connectedness, a clear purpose, inspiration — but all have one thing in common: They get you to focus on something outside yourself.

A sense of social connectedness

Some of the practices are about cultivating a sense of social connectedness. Decades of psychology research have taught us that this is a key to happiness.

In fact, Lyubomirsky said, “I think it is the key to happiness.”

That’s what Harvard’s Study of Adult Development discovered by following the lives of hundreds of people over 80 years, from the time they were teenagers all the way into their 90s. The massive longitudinal study revealed that the people who ended up happiest were the ones who really leaned into good relationships with family, friends, and community. Close relationships were better predictors of long and pleasant lives than money, IQ, or fame.

Psychiatrist George Vaillant, who led the study from 1972 to 2004, summed it up like so: “The key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships.”

Other studies have found evidence that social connections boost not only our mental health but also our physical health, helping to combat everything from memory loss to fatal heart attacks.

During our pandemic winter, you can socialize in person by, yes, gathering around a fire pit or maybe doubling your bubble. But there are other ways to make you feel you’re connected to others in a wider web. A great option is to perform an act of kindness — like donating to charity, or volunteering to read to a child or an older person online.

“I do a lot of research on kindness, and it turns out people who help others end up feeling more connected and become happier,” Lyubomirsky told me.

Lyubomirsky’s research shows that committing any type of kind act can make you happier, though you should choose something that fits your personality (for example, if you don’t like kids, then reading to them might not be for you). You may also want to vary what you do, because once you get used to doing something, you start taking it for granted and don’t get as much of a boost from it. By contrast, people who vary their kind acts show an increase in happiness immediately afterward and up to one month later. So you might call to check up on a lonely friend one day, deliver groceries to an older neighbor the next day, and make a donation the day after that.

A sense of purpose

Other practices are about cultivating a sense of purpose. Psychologists have found that having a clear purpose is one of the most effective ways to cope with isolation.

Steve Cole, a researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, studies interventions designed to help people cope with loneliness. He’s found that the ones that work tend to focus not on decreasing loneliness, but on increasing people’s sense of purpose. Recalling one pilot program that paired isolated older people with elementary school kids whom they’re asked to tutor and look out for, Cole told Vox, “Secretly, this is an intervention for the older people.”

Philosophers have long noted the fortifying effects of a clear sense of purpose. “Nietzsche said if you find purpose in your suffering, you can tolerate all the pain that comes with it,” Jack Fong, a sociologist who researches solitude at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, told me. “It’s when people don’t see a purpose in their suffering that they freak out.”

Experienced solitaries confirm this. Billy Barr, who’s been living alone in an abandoned mining shack high up in the Rocky Mountains for almost 50 years, says we should all keep track of something. In his case, it’s the environment. How high is the snow today? What animals appeared this month? For decades, he’s been tracking the answers to these questions, and his records have actually influenced climate change science.

Now, he suggests that people get through the pandemic by participating in a citizen science project such as CoCoRaHS, which tracks rainfall.

“I would definitely recommend people doing that,” he told WAMU. “You get a little rain gauge, put it outside, and you’re part of a network where there’s thousands of other people doing the same thing as you, the same time of the day as you’re doing it.” (Notice, again, that this is really about sensing you’re part of the larger world around you.)

Other citizen science projects are looking for laypeople to classify wild animals caught on camera or predict the spread of Covid-19.

If citizen science isn’t your jam, find something else that gives you a sense of purpose, whether it’s writing that novel you’ve been kicking around for years, signing up to volunteer with a mutual aid group, or whatever else.

A sense of inspiration

Finally, some practices are about cultivating a sense of inspiration — which can take the form of gratitude, curiosity, or awe.

Regularly feeling gratitude helps protect us from stress and depression.

“When you feel grateful, your mind turns its attention to what is perhaps the greatest source of resilience for most humans: other humans,” David DeSteno, a psychology professor at Northeastern University and the author of Emotional Success, told me. “By reminding you that you’re not alone — that others have contributed to your well-being — it reduces stress.”

So one thing you can do this winter is try gratitude journaling. This simple practice — jotting down things you’re grateful for once or twice a week — has gained popularity over the past few years. But studies show there are more and less effective ways to do it. Researchers say it’s better to write in detail about one particular thing, really savoring it, than to dash off a superficial list of things. They recommend that you try to focus on people you’re grateful to, because that’s more impactful than focusing on things, and that you focus on events that surprised you, because they generally elicit stronger feelings of thankfulness.

Another practice is to write a letter of gratitude to someone. Research shows it significantly increases your levels of gratitude, even if you never actually send the letter. And the effects on the brain can last for months. In one study, subjects who participated in gratitude letter writing expressed more thankfulness and showed more activity in their pregenual anterior cingulate cortex — an area involved in predicting the outcomes of our actions — three months later.

Feeling a sense of curiosity or awe about the world around you is likewise shown to boost emotional well-being.

“Awe makes us feel like our problems are very trivial in the big scheme of things,” Lyubomirsky said. “The idea that you are this tiny speck in the universe gives you this bigger-picture perspective, which is really helpful when you’re too self-focused over your problems.”

For example, a study recently published in the journal Emotion investigated the effects of “awe walks.” Over a period of eight weeks, 60 participants took weekly 15-minute walks outdoors. Those who were encouraged to seek out moments of awe during their walks ended up showing more of the “small self” mindset, greater increases in daily positive emotions, and greater decreases in daily distress over time, compared to a control group who walked without being primed to seek out awe.

Click Here:

“What we show here is that a very simple intervention — essentially a reminder to occasionally shift our energy and attention outward instead of inward — can lead to significant improvements in emotional wellbeing,” said Sturm, the lead author.

So, bottom line: When the world between your two ears is as bleak as the howling winter outside, shifting your attention outward can be powerfully beneficial for your mental health. And hey, even in the dead of winter, a 15-minute awe walk outdoors is probably something you can do.

If you or anyone you know is anxious, depressed, upset, or needs to talk, there are people who want to help. Text CRISIS to 741741 for free, confidential crisis counseling.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.

What it’s like to die from Covid-19

March 23, 2022 | News | No Comments

We’ve reached half a million deaths from the coronavirus in the US. But most of these deaths — and the grueling medical ordeals leading up to them — have remained largely hidden from view. The majority of terminally ill Covid-19 patients typically spend their last days or weeks isolated in ICUs to keep the virus from spreading.

“Most of what I’m seeing is behind closed curtains, and the general public isn’t seeing this side of it,” says Todd Rice, a critical care and pulmonology specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Even “families are only seeing a little bit of it,” he says. As a result, most of us have been “protected and sheltered from seeing the worst of this disease.”

So what have these 500,000 people endured as the infection took over and their bodies failed? The terrible details have been strikingly absent from most of our personal and national discussions about the virus. But if we have been thus far (perhaps somewhat willfully) blind to the excruciating ways Covid-19 takes lives, this milestone is an opportunity to open our eyes.

Four physicians, who collectively have cared for more than 100 dying Covid-19 patients over the past 11 months, shared with Vox what their patients have gone through physically and mentally as the virus killed them. Their experiences reveal the isolating and invasive realities of what it is typically like for someone to die from Covid-19.

Lungs “full of bees” and a “sense of impending doom”

The torture of Covid-19 can begin long before someone is sick enough to be admitted to a hospital intensive care unit.

Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, it hampers the intake of oxygen. People with worsening Covid-19 typically show up in the emergency room because they are having trouble breathing.

As their lungs deteriorate further, they have a harder and harder time getting enough oxygen with each breath, meaning they need to breathe faster and faster — up from an average of about 14 times per minute to 30 or 40. Such gasping can bring about a very real sense of panic.

Imagine trying to breathe through a very narrow straw, says Jess Mandel, chief of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. “You can do that for 15 to 20 seconds, but try doing it for two hours.” Or for days or weeks.

Patients struggling through low oxygen levels like this have told Kenneth Remy, an assistant professor of critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, that it feels like a band across their chest or that their lungs are on fire. Or like a thousand bees stinging them inside their chest. Others might have thick secretions in their lungs that make it feel like they are trying to breathe through muck. Many people say it feels like they’re being smothered.

The ordeal is so taxing that many wish for death. “You hear the patients say, ‘I just want to die because this is so excruciating,’” Remy says. “That’s what this virus does.”

Others feel that death is coming no matter what they do. Rice notes that is much more so for his Covid-19 patients than others he has treated. There seems to be something about Covid-19, he says, “that makes people prone to having a feeling of, ‘I really believe I’m going to die.’”

Meilinh Thi, who specializes in critical care and pulmonology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, has witnessed the same thing. “A lot of patients, regardless of age, have this sense of impending doom,” Thi says. Many have told her outright they felt like they were going to die. Eerily, “Everyone who has told me that has passed away,” she says.

Isolated

The agony of being critically ill with Covid-19 isn’t just borne by the body but also by the mind. “It doesn’t only put your lungs on fire or give you a horrible headache or make you feel miserable or make you breathe really fast,” Remy says. “It also wreaks havoc on your mental state.”

For one, from the time anyone with Covid-19 is admitted to the hospital, they are essentially cut off from almost everything that is familiar. Most Covid-19 deaths have occurred in hospitals, but Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that some are also dying in long-term care facilities (about 10 percent) or at home (about 6 percent).

“A lot of patients have told me how isolating and how lonely it is,” Thi says. And many get depressed. It is also incredibly scary to reach that point of illness with a disease that we know has already killed so many people, she and others point out.

All of these challenges have a cumulative effect. “If you can understand being in the hospital for two, three weeks, continuously breathing that fast, not having good interactions with your family because they can’t come and visit you — it’s extremely anxiety-provoking. It’s scary,” Remy says.

Click Here:

Being in the ICU for any reason also vastly increases a person’s risk for delirium, a state of confusion that can result in agitation, fear, and anger. Medications used to sedate people or relieve pain (both common in Covid-19 treatment) are part of the reason for this risk, as are the constant monitoring and physical disturbances — and subsequent sleep disruption.

Being a Covid-19 patient increases this likelihood of disorientation even more. Some estimates put the rate of delirium among adult ICU Covid-19 patients at about 65 percent.

One reason for this extra risk is that the only people patients see are covered in head-to-toe PPE, often with only their eye area visible behind a shield or goggles, rendering them even more anonymous and unfamiliar. (ICU nurses have described working alongside the same people for decades and now not recognizing them due to all the protective gear.) “That for sure increases the risk of delirium,” Thi says.

As a Covid-19 patient, “You’re just devoid of human contact to a large degree,” Mandel says.

And that is no small thing. With loved ones relegated to video calls, personal connection through in-person visits — typically a mainstay during an intensive hospital stay — is gone.

“If your mom or dad or spouse was in the hospital and was very sick, you would be at their bedside holding their hand,” Remy says. With fatal Covid-19, your last meaningful contact with family, before your final hours, might be as you get admitted into the ER, days or weeks before.

Doctors often have to use many invasive procedures to try to save lives

Anyone unwell enough to be in the ICU for any reason will be hooked up to lots of machines. But people with severe Covid-19 face a particularly grueling and invasive experience.

When people can no longer breathe for themselves and still aren’t getting enough oxygen from external sources (like short nose tubes or a BiPap machine, like those some people wear for sleep apnea), the next step is usually putting them on a ventilator.

To do this, patients are put on IV-based sedation and pain medication so they can tolerate the procedure. A tube is inserted into the mouth and down the airway so the machine can pump air into the lungs. The tube can remain there for days or weeks, during which time that person will remain heavily sedated and unable to talk. (This sedation can also mask other problems that arise during their illness, such as major strokes.)

Those who have survived the ordeal often don’t even remember the day leading up to being put on ventilation, Thi says. “They say they really just lost that portion of their life.”

The ventilator itself is not without risks. For example, if the machine is set to deliver too much air, it can cause additional lung damage. And the breathing tube only tends to be safe to keep in place for about two to three weeks, Thi notes. After that, it can start to deteriorate. At that point, doctors might surgically insert a tube into the patient’s neck — a procedure known as a tracheostomy — to connect them to the ventilator.

For some, even mechanical ventilation can’t get them enough oxygen. These patients often get put on “heart-lung” machines, which pump blood out of the body, through a machine that oxygenates it, and back in. (These are also sometimes used for people who have suffered a heart attack, and are known to have numerous side effects, such as increased risk for strokes as well as for agitation and delirium.) This process requires two large catheters (long tubes) inserted into a major artery or vein, so the machine can effectively pump enough blood in and out of the body.

Flipping people onto their stomachs has also helped get more air into their systems. During this practice, called proning, the sick individual is typically put on a medication to paralyze them so they cannot move. (Medical staff also turn incapacitated patients in bed every couple of hours “to make sure their skin doesn’t break down,” Thi says.)

A significant proportion of people — somewhere between about 1 in 5 and 1 in 3 — who get very sick with Covid-19 also end up with kidney failure. To prevent this from killing them, they’re put on dialysis machines, which take blood out of the body and filter it before returning it to the body. This procedure can cause nausea, cramping, and chronic itching. Anyone getting dialysis will need two additional large catheters put into another major blood vessel.

But these aren’t all of the tubes critically ill Covid-19 patients need. They also have a central venous catheter to administer medication. This long tube usually gets inserted into a major vein in the clavicle or groin, then is pushed through the vein until it reaches the heart, where it will stay until that person recovers or dies. Another catheter, sometimes put in near the groin, will take the person’s blood for analysis.

Other catheters will be inserted into the urethra to drain urine (which is monitored closely) and the rectum to frequently evacuate their feces (which is especially important because Covid-19 often causes diarrhea). Additional IVs, such as for hydration and medications, will poke patients in smaller vessels as well. People this ill with Covid-19 will also have a tube put into their mouth or nose and down into their stomach, to deliver a nutritious slurry to prevent malnutrition.

On top of all of these tubes and needles, a number of other beeping and humming devices monitor a person’s vitals. Leads attached to the chest track heart function, and a pulse oximeter on the finger keeps tabs on oxygen saturation. A standard cuff monitors blood pressure, but people often get an additional catheter into yet another vessel to measure blood pressure from within that artery.

All of these incredibly invasive interventions have a goal of sustaining the body simply so that it can try to fight off the virus and heal. “The technology we have is very powerful in terms of keeping people alive but less powerful at turning things around,” Mandel says. “It’s always a race.”

But even all of these procedures — alongside treatments like dexamethasone and remdesivir — are not enough to save everyone with Covid-19. Some people decline to go through some or all of this, or at least to endure it indefinitely, but that does not guarantee a lack of suffering. And for those most unlucky 1.8 percent of people confirmed to have Covid-19 in the US, death will then be imminent.

The end

Once someone is sick enough with Covid-19 that they need a ventilator, their chance of survival is somewhere between 40 and 60 percent, notes Remy. “You flip a coin, and you may be one of those people who die,” he says.

Remy recalls one particularly difficult week during the fall surge when he cared for a number of people in their 40s and 50s who ultimately died. Most of them were obese but otherwise healthy when they caught Covid-19 by not wearing a mask.

“One of the[se] patients specifically told me before I put the breathing tube in, ‘Let everyone know that this is real, my lungs are on fire. It’s like there’s bees stinging me. I can’t breathe. Please let them know to wear a mask … because I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy.’”

Right after that patient died, Remy made a precautionary video that he posted on Twitter.

If a patient’s breathing deteriorates slowly, hospitals can often arrange a way for them to talk with family members before they get intubated. Because after the tube goes in, they might not be conscious or able to talk again before they die. Regardless, the last person they have conscious contact with is typically a member of the medical staff before they are heavily sedated to receive the ventilator tube. In essence, “It could be anybody,” Rice says.

Despite the strict isolation for Covid-19 patients, “We try to make sure patients don’t die alone,” Thi says. For those who quickly nosedive, there often isn’t time to bring in family. Those people die surrounded by medical staff, either receiving CPR or, if they had do not resuscitate orders, with staff standing by.

For those who fall toward death, family — in full PPE — are now typically allowed in (which wasn’t usually the case at the beginning of the pandemic). At that point, “We would proceed with comfort measures only,” Thi says. In this scenario, the dying person will be on heavy medication as the ventilator tube is removed. Even still, once it gets taken out, people often gasp or cough as the body fights for air before they die.

Despite the palliative care and the possibility for family to now be present for a person’s actual death, doctors describe Covid-19 as a uniquely terrible way to die. “Covid is just so different,” Thi says. “I don’t think anything could be comparable to it. … I don’t wish it on my worst enemy.”

Remy agrees. After having cared for patients dying from infectious diseases all over the world, he says, “I don’t know a disease that wreaks such havoc on the body and on the mind.” Which is perhaps why his dying patient was pleading with him so desperately just before being intubated to tell people to wear their masks and take the virus seriously.

Because otherwise, it will continue to take thousands of lives this way each day in the US until we can get vaccines to almost everyone.

Katherine Harmon Courage is a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and and Octopus! Find her on Twitter at @KHCourage.

The power was still out in my Dallas housing complex early last Tuesday, so I grabbed the survival hatchet from my emergency bag to chop up a couple of fallen trees, which were covered with six inches of down-soft snow dropped by Winter Storm Uri.

The trees broke easily, and after 30 minutes of hacking, I’d cut enough for two small blazes. I divided the wood — one half for my apartment, the other for my neighbor.

My wife Joy and I cooked beans over the fireplace and burned some old clothing to keep the temperature in the apartment above 40 degrees. After our fire died, our complex issued an “Important Message For Residents” warning that Dallas might ration water as treatment plants froze: “Please take action NOW to fill pots/pitchers, bathtubs and other storage containers … use this water to flush toilets.”

Joy, who had recently moved here from Bolivia, had seen her WhatsApp fill up with worried messages from loved ones who’ve watched America’s panoply of recent crises unfold. They asked if she was safe from the horrors on their televisions: the world’s worst Covid-19 numbers, horned defectors with assault weapons, and now infrastructure that abandons people during natural disasters.

After reading the hoard-water note, she turned to me and joked, “I thought the United States was a first-world country?”

In her eyes, a developed country and its state leaders should take care of its citizens. Millions of Texans have seen their electricity cut out for hours and days at a time in a deadly rolling crisis that began with snowfall on Valentine’s Day. Though most power is now restored, millions of Texans are still without water as treatment plants recover. The crisis has been a burden, not just for the state or the power company at fault, but for its residents to bear.

You see, we’re individuals, and, like one Texas mayor wrote on Facebook, we shouldn’t expect state institutions to help. “No one owes you or your family anything; nor is it the local government’s responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice!” then-Mayor Tim Boyd of Colorado City, a town of fewer than 5,000 people a four-hour drive west of Dallas, told constituents in a typo-laden Facebook post. (That same day, he announced his resignation, but he didn’t say whether his exit stemmed from the backlash.)

We were on our own.

We lost power for most of Monday and Tuesday, but luckily, we never lost water. Many Texans fared worse. Houston firefighters had to deal with low water pressure when dousing residential fires started by candles, displacing dozens of Houstonians. Prison inmates had to live with overflowing, unusable toilets for days. Exotic animals, including a chimpanzee and other primates, froze to death in a San Antonio rescue. By last Tuesday, hospitals had treated more than 50 people for carbon monoxide poisoning; desperate to get warm, they’d heated their homes with gas stoves and running cars. A woman near Houston filed a wrongful death lawsuit against power utilities after her 11-year-old son froze to death in his bed.

The disaster worsened existing crises in average Texans’ lives. My neighbor, a nurse who underwent several major surgeries this year amid the pandemic, began to seem less social and more withdrawn. My boss’s mother suffered a stroke just before the storm, and his energies were split between caring for her and making sure his water pipes didn’t freeze. I was depressed and disagreeable.

I draw a line from this catastrophe to America’s fetishized individualism for which Texas, home to a fierce secessionist movement, is the poster child. Texas is where the West starts, home of high-riding cowboys and oilmen who project an image of self-reliance — all they needed to prosper was a government that stayed out of their way.

I work for a manufacturer that makes devices for the power industry, and I can’t conjure a better example of the Texas government’s light touch than its relationship to the electric grid. As electricity infrastructure evolved in the 1930s, the federal government regulated energy across state lines. But Texas had its own grid network, the Texas Interconnected System, and a flourishing oil trade. So the state shrewdly spurned interstate grids.

In the 1970s, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, was formed to manage the state’s electricity distribution. But in 2002, Texas deregulated its energy market, creating an environment in which electricity retailers compete for business. The lowest bidder would win customers in the marketplace, but that encouraged power generators to delay or neglect weatherizing critical equipment. In 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission warned ERCOT that power plants must winterize their equipment. Electricity providers, beholden only to the market, largely ignored the advice.

Put simply, this market created a larger disaster when the freezing weather hit. Because the function of the Texas power industry is to provide cheap electricity, it has no incentive to make costly preparations to its infrastructure for comparatively rare cold weather.

As Uri intensified, enough people were using electric heaters and enough generation equipment had frozen that demand outpaced supply, and the grid’s frequency began to destabilize. Officials told the Texas Tribune Thursday the grid was “minutes” from a full crash, which would’ve taken weeks to restore. ERCOT then mandated statewide “rolling blackouts” to reconcile the grid’s burden with power generation.

It initially said the outages would last less than 45 minutes, but when I woke up that morning, the lights and heat were out. I spent an hour on a dying cellphone navigating overwhelmed service hotlines for any nugget pointing to restored power. I learned the outage could, in fact, last hours, and I gave up calling. Local officials gave suggestions on how to make do. The city of Fort Worth told constituents to close their blinds and stuff towels in cracks to retain heat.

This disaster doesn’t appear to have inspired sober reflection among many of our politicians. On Fox News last week, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blamed wind turbines for the crisis; in fact, natural gas equipment is responsible for the bulk of the losses. Cranking up the invective, Abbott fingered as a culprit the Green New Deal, a policy framework to address climate change that Congress rejected in 2019. And, of course, our climate-change-denying Republican Sen. Ted Cruz famously jetted off from Houston to Cancun with his family mid-crisis as Texans froze to death.

Individualist thinking justifies this mentality. It says that states and individuals should marshal and deploy their own resources, a notion as American as apple pie. If you lack the resources to get to a Mexican beach resort, hike your sleeves, chop firewood, and don’t burn down your home.

I ended up chopping wood. I’m lucky that I had the option to — it allowed us to stay warm for part of Tuesday morning, and it was better than huddling in a darkened bedroom. But not everyone lives in a forested apartment complex, and others were forced to turn to potentially deadly methods, like a grandmother who spent a night in her car to keep warm.

Click Here:

The fact that I even had a survival hatchet feels ironic. I’m mostly skeptical of prepper culture, partly because it reeks of that individualism. Yet Joy and I frantically built our emergency bags in January after Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol. A friend who works in logistics told me corporations were preparing for a doomsday scenario after the DC raid — cutting emergency credit cards for employees, making extraction plans. Our form of government forces us to prep, and when you’re on your own, it pays to have the tools.

Still, during Uri, ordinary Texans didn’t just help themselves. They distributed food, donated and organized mutual aid funds, and, if they had electricity, took shivering strangers into their homes. A coworker ran errands for neighbors who can’t drive in snow. An acquaintance brought an elderly woman coolers full of water so she could flush the loo.

Tuesday night, our neighbor knocked on our door with an Ikea tote full of more black willow. “They cut this firewood, you want some?”

It was sweet to be cared for by our community. But it’d be better if our government looked after us instead.

Aaron Hedge is a Dallas-based writer and a reader at Longform.org.

A panel of expert advisers to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted unanimously on Friday afternoon to recommend the one-dose Covid-19 vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson for an emergency use authorization. The next step is for the FDA to accept the recommendation, which could happen as soon as this weekend, clearing the way for distribution.

Earlier this week, the FDA posted a briefing going over the results of the phase 3 clinical trials of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which included 40,000 participants in several countries divided randomly into placebo and treatment groups.

The most important finding: The vaccine was 100 percent effective after 28 days at preventing deaths and hospitalizations from Covid-19 among the clinical trial participants who received the treatment. (Two vaccine recipients were hospitalized with Covid-19 two weeks after receiving the injection.)

The vaccine was also 66.1 percent effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 illness after four weeks, with consistent results across all age groups. When looking at blocking severe and critical cases of Covid-19, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 85.4 percent effective.

Mathai Mammen, global head of research and development for Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, said during a press conference last month that the vaccine also had “plain vanilla safety results,” with the vast majority of recipients experiencing no problems. Most of the reported symptoms were mild, including fatigue, arm pain, and fever.

The efficacy levels against severe to critical Covid-19 changed depending on where the vaccine was tested. It was 85.9 percent in the United States after four weeks, while in South Africa, where a coronavirus variant with worrisome mutations that help it escape vaccines has been spreading widely, efficacy against severe disease was reduced to 81.7 percent.

Health officials say that while the Johnson & Johnson efficacy results are not as high as those from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, the two vaccines that have already received emergency use authorizations from the FDA, the new vaccine’s performance is still superb.

“If this had occurred in the absence of a prior announcement and implementation of a 94, 95 percent efficacy [vaccine], one would have said this is an absolutely spectacular result,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during the press conference last month. The vaccine was developed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson based in Belgium, together with Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

But unlike the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson’s doesn’t require a booster shot, circumventing the two-dose problems posed by its competitors. There’s no need to track people down for their second dose, which means more people could be vaccinated faster. The shots also don’t require deep-cold storage, which means they’re less costly and somewhat easier to distribute.

“It’s a complete game changer,” said Georgetown University health law professor Lawrence Gostin. “It completely changes the equation.”

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is also different in another way. It uses an adenovirus vector to deliver instructions for making the spike protein of the coronavirus, which is also less expensive to manufacture than the mRNA platform used for the other vaccines. (It’s estimated to cost around $10 per vaccine dose — roughly half the cost of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.)

Johnson & Johnson has promised enough vaccines for 20 million Americans by the end of March and 100 million Americans by the end of June despite production challenges. It would be a huge boost to the 65 million Covid-19 vaccine doses that have been administered in the US so far.

So even with an overall efficacy level that’s lower than the two other vaccines on the US market, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could become a major player. It’s the vaccine that “can increase equity,” said Saad Omer, the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, particularly “if it’s deployed strategically in nations that are hard to reach and where that would be a particular challenge under a two-dose schedule.” Johnson & Johnson expects to distribute a billion doses of its vaccine worldwide this year.

But as amazing as it is to see several effective Covid-19 vaccines developed in record time, it’s now clear that the technology alone won’t save the day. An orchestra of supply chains, manufacturing, logistics, staff, and public trust needs to harmonize in order to actually get billions of shots into arms around the world and finally draw the pandemic to a close. And we also have other hurdles to overcome: controlling the spread of variants that seem to be threatening the effectiveness of all the vaccines we have.

What we learned about the safety and efficacy of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine

Johnson & Johnson launched separate clinical trials testing both a one-dose and a two-dose regimen to see how well these strategies provided long-term protection against Covid-19. The one-dose phase 3 trial arm yielded efficacy results first.

But hints that this vaccine could be safe and effective have been trickling out for months. The company published some of its early phase 1 and phase 2 trial data in a preprint paper in September, and the final version of the paper in January, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The papers showed the vaccine was well tolerated among the participants, and seemingly very effective: With one dose, after 29 days, the vaccine ensured that 90 percent of participants had enough antibodies required to neutralize the virus. After 57 days, that number reached 100 percent.

“When I looked at that, I thought, wow, this Johnson & Johnson product is very powerful after the first dose in terms of immunogenicity,” said Monica Gandhi, a professor of global medicine at the University of California San Francisco. “The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines needed two doses to get that level of [virus] neutralization.”

Like Pfizer/BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson “didn’t rush to phase 3 [trials],” said Hilda Bastian, a scientist who has been tracking the global vaccine race. Instead, it tested multiple vaccine doses and candidates at the outset to figure out which might perform the best in humans, and then proceeded through clinical trials.

Click Here:

The vaccine was also tested in nine countries — the largest single international phase 3 trial in the world, with more than 60,000 participants — meaning many ethnic groups were represented in the data, Bastian said. “As if all that’s not enough, it’s one of the ones that could be manufactured in South Africa and other places,” since Johnson & Johnson has manufacturing capacity around the world, even in countries hard-hit by the pandemic that have been waiting for vaccine supplies, she added.

The day this vaccine gets approval “is going to be a big day for the future of this pandemic [and] a ticket out of this disease for a larger part of the world,” said Nicholas Lusiani, a senior adviser at Oxfam America.

How adenovirus vector vaccines work

Part of the appeal of this vaccine lies in the technology behind it. Adenoviruses are a family of viruses that can cause a range of illnesses in humans, including the common cold. They’re very efficient at getting their DNA into a cell’s nucleus. Scientists reasoned that if they could snip out the right sections of an adenovirus’s genome and insert another piece of DNA code (in this case, for a fragment of the new coronavirus), they could have a powerful system to deliver instructions to cells.

For decades, scientists have experimented with adenovirus vectors as a platform for gene therapy and to treat certain cancers, using the virus to modify or replace genes in host cells. More recently, researchers have found success using adenoviruses as vaccines. Already, an adenovirus vector vaccine has been developed for the Ebola virus.

In addition to Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca/Oxford, CanSino Biologics of China is also developing an adenovirus vector Covid-19 vaccine; Russia’s Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine uses this platform, too.

To make one of these vaccines, the adenovirus is modified so that it can’t reproduce but can carry the instructions for making a component of a virus. In the case of Covid-19, most adenovirus vector vaccines code for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the part the virus uses to begin an infection.

Human cells then read those instructions delivered by the adenovirus and begin manufacturing the spike protein. The immune system recognizes the spike proteins as a threat and begins to build up its defenses.

Since adenoviruses exist naturally, they tend to be more temperature-stable than the synthetic lipid nanoparticles that are used to deliver the mRNA in the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines.

“The nice thing about the adenovirus vector vaccines is that they’re a little more tolerant to a longer shelf life, to the conditions of storage,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University. Adenovirus vector vaccines can be stored at refrigerator temperatures, while mRNA vaccines need freezers, with Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine requiring temperatures of minus 80 degrees Celsius.

This helps lower the cost and complexity of manufacturing, distribution, and administration of adenovirus vector vaccines compared to other platforms. And simply having another vaccine on the market, made by a major pharmaceutical company with its own manufacturing infrastructure, is a big step forward. “The more vaccine doses we can have, the better,” Rasmussen said.

What comes next

The next challenge for Johnson & Johnson, after getting a green light from the FDA, is actually delivering doses to millions of arms.

But with three vaccines eventually on the market, should people hold out for any one vaccine in particular?

“Right now when people ask me, which, you know, which vaccine should I get? It’s pretty easy to answer that question because it’s whichever one you get offered,” said Paul Sax, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Vaccine supplies are limited, the transmission of the virus is high, and hospitals are close to capacity, so few people can be picky about what they get.

On the other hand, once vaccine supplies stabilize, having multiple vaccines with different characteristics could allow doctors and public health officials to optimize how the shots are distributed. “If the efficacy [of a given vaccine] is lower but still pretty good, there may be a scenario that one vaccine is recommended for low-risk populations and another one is for a high-risk population,” Omer said.

Though the Johnson & Johnson vaccine does have some key advantages over its competitors, it could face some of the same distribution snags that have hit other vaccines, like miscommunication between the government and hospitals, and production hurdles.

Researchers say that all the manufacturers also need to start working to get vaccines to the rest of the world. The new variants that have emerged in the UK, Brazil, and South Africa and have been detected in other parts of the world are reminders that the virus continues to evolve, and that a partially vaccinated population could exert more selection pressures that accelerate these mutations. So vaccination has to happen fast, and globally — and Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine may be a critical tool to do this.

“Long term, we need to be thinking about getting vaccines out equitably to the entire world, and having vaccines that are easier to distribute in terms of the cold chain requirements is going to be huge in that regard,” Rasmussen said.

But even as these vaccines roll out, there’s still more to learn: how long protection from vaccines last, whether there are any rare complications to consider, whether they prevent transmission as well as disease, and how well these vaccines work against the new variants. There are already some troubling signs of how these variants might eventually be able to evade vaccines. Continuing clinical trials will be critical, Sax said.

“You know, we’ve got millions of people who’ve received these vaccines already, which is exciting,” he added. “We’re on our way.”

When many Americans talk about returning to “normal life” after the pandemic, they might mean going back to the office, resuming in-person school or child care, or preparing for the best summer ever. For plenty of other people, though, their true barometer is the simple ability to once again eat indoors at restaurants.

The past year completely overhauled countless lives, essentially asking each and every one of us to pare down our social selves if we want to protect our health and that of others. And like some demented curse, it turned out strangers eating together inside a restaurant is actually one of the ideal settings where the coronavirus absolutely thrives. Indoor dining was one of the first things to go in many states’ efforts to curb the pandemic, and the decision to keep restaurants open sparked national conversations about larger issues such as freedom, safety, and the economy.

And now, while indoor dining at restaurants has largely returned (or, in some cases, never went away), restaurants aren’t the same. Neither are we.

According to the National Restaurant Association’s 2021 state of the industry report, restaurant sales in 2020 were $240 billion lower than what was forecasted, thanks to the pandemic, and over 110,000 eating and drinking establishments shut their doors at least temporarily. The organization estimated that at one point, around 8 million employees were laid off or furloughed. Restaurant employees who kept their jobs risked their health to work during the pandemic. And, according to the results of a Morning Consult poll published April 21, only 55 percent of the public would feel comfortable eating indoors right now.

Faced with this new reality, I asked public health experts if it’s natural to be hesitant about our new dining normal (it is) and whether eating at restaurants indoors is still risky (you probably shouldn’t if you’re not fully vaccinated, and you should still mask indoors if you are).

Click Here:

But at the heart of this debate, and of my hesitance, is the question of how we navigate our newfound freedom, what we need to relearn, and whether we should be doing so in the first place. Despite the restaurant reopenings and general excitement, the answer might not be one we’re ready to hear.

Indoor dining is inherently very risky when it comes to Covid-19

The way epidemiologists currently look at dining — indoor dining specifically — is different from the way most of us probably look at it. They see a full dining room and think about the prolonged amount of time people are spending together unmasked, eating and talking and laughing and sending tiny particles into the air. They remember that a little over half of all American adults have had at least one vaccine dose, which means unvaccinated people may be among those who are eating and talking and laughing in that dining room. They also look at the number of windows in the dining room and whether they’re open.

All of these factors combine to make indoor dining a coronavirus hazard.

“It’s not just that indoor dining checks one box, it’s that it checks many of them,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist at George Mason University. “All of those things make it higher risk.”

These risks make decisions such as fully opening restaurants without any safety protocols — see Texas and Mississippi — concerning for Popescu and her public health colleagues. According to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 5, counties that opened restaurants for on-premises dining saw a rise in daily infections roughly six weeks later and an increase in death rates about three weeks after that. The findings were in line with those of a July 2020 study, which found that “going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity.”

While the CDC study doesn’t assert a cause-and-effect connection, the agency has emphasized that the risk is present. Public health experts have been urging lawmakers and diners to use extreme caution since the pandemic began.

The complicated new wrinkle in these warnings is that Americans now have access to very effective vaccines that protect against both hospitalization and the most serious Covid-19 symptoms. The messaging about risk becomes cloudy when combined with the extremely positive messaging about vaccines, especially when people have been waiting to resume their normal lives.

In response, public health experts have had to thread the needle about maintaining caution without compromising the positive messaging about vaccines, and vice versa.

Popescu said she’s focused on vaccination status. Current health advisories from the government and the CDC suggest that people who are fully vaccinated can go and mingle with others who are also fully vaccinated. And people who are fully vaccinated can visit an unvaccinated household, provided no one is at high risk for severe disease.

“You don’t know any of that information in a restaurant,” Popescu told me, explaining the CDC currently estimates that around 30 percent of the American population and 38 percent of Americans older than 18 are fully vaccinated. She also said we have to keep in mind that scientists are still studying the efficacy of vaccines against new variants, and that while the vaccines we have are safe and effective, a small number of breakthrough infections, where vaccinated people still catch Covid-19, have occurred.

“You don’t know the vaccination status of other people in a restaurant, and to start requiring that, I think, would be a huge issue in terms of equity. I can’t even imagine going down that route,” Popescu said.

Marissa Baker, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Washington, echoed Popescu’s sentiments: In indoor restaurants where not everyone is fully vaccinated, the risk isn’t zero — and the risk to unvaccinated or partially vaccinated individuals is one of her main concerns.

The higher the fully vaccinated percentage rises, the more comfortable Baker, Popescu, and their public health colleagues are with indoor dining. What troubles them is the number of restaurants that are open without any restrictions while vaccination numbers remain where they are, and that there are still states where Covid-19 cases are high.

Figuring out a vaccination percentage that public health officials feel is safe and considered herd immunity is what Baker calls the “billion-dollar question” of the moment.

“All I can say is that we definitely aren’t there yet,” she said, urging patience and pointing out that each day means more people vaccinated, one step closer to herd immunity, and one step closer to possibly eating at The Cheesecake Factory indoors, unmasked, with friends. The problem is that America’s track record with the pandemic and patience hasn’t been stellar.

When it comes to risk, everything is personal

In separate interviews, Popescu and Baker both said they weren’t personally comfortable yet with indoor dining. They also said that someone’s risk tolerance is a personal, individual decision. They can’t stop anyone from dining out and, say, enjoying burgers if that is what the person’s heart desires.

What they urge, though, is that everyone considers these risks and how to mitigate them before making their decisions.

“I try to be mindful of teetering that line about really reminding people that vaccines are the best tool we have. They’re really amazing and efficacious. But they’re also not sterilizing immunity,” Popescu explained. “They’re close but not perfect. They’re a risk reducer, not an eliminator. And that is even that much more of an important nuance when we’re not at herd immunity when we don’t have global equitable distribution.”

Instead of thinking about vaccines as magic bullets, public health experts urge us to think about them in conjunction with other tools in our repertoire — tools that we’ve been using for the past year, like maintaining distance, socializing in pods, ventilation, and masking.

“People should be looking for restaurants that have really good airflow, that their waitstaff is consistently wearing masks, and that they’re expecting their patrons to wear masks, and that they’re conscientious about their Covid controls as well,” Baker said.

While some of this can seem superfluous, especially to those feeling confident about their fully vaccinated status, these precautions help with the bigger picture of reducing transmission and achieving herd immunity. Herd immunity isn’t thinking about our individual selves, but what we can do for our communities.

“When thinking about going out to eat or going to a restaurant or a bar, it’s important to keep in mind that there’s, of course, you and the other patrons in those spaces. But there’s also the workers in those spaces,” Baker said.

Baker urges that when we eat out, we should really think about if we are keeping servers, runners, bussers, cooks, and restaurant staff safe. There’s a chance some waitstaff might not be fully vaccinated, and regardless, they’re likely interacting with many people a day and therefore have a higher risk for exposure. By taking individual precautions, diners can make it safer for those serving them.

But that isn’t often the reality.

“I don’t mean to overuse this word or use it lightly, but the past year was pretty traumatic working in the restaurant and dealing with customers,” Amanda Cohen, the James Beard-nominated chef and owner of Dirt Candy, a restaurant in Manhattan’s Lower East Side, told me.

She explained that in addition to the stress of keeping her restaurant afloat, she often had to tell customers to put on their masks, maintain distancing, and often repeat and remind customers of her restaurant’s Covid-19 protocols and rules.

“I certainly felt like I was the Covid police. And in a way — and I get it — nobody was prepared for the pandemic,” she said. “But I wish the city, and I think most people in most cities felt like this, had really stepped up and put the onus on the customers who are going out to eat, to follow the rules and not the restaurant to have to be the one to implement them. You know, I don’t like being the Covid police.”

Dirt Candy hasn’t yet resumed indoor dining because Cohen is still figuring out the best way to implement protocols to keep her customers and her staff safe.

Cohen’s experience isn’t unique. Servers and restaurant staff often have to remind customers about masking and protocols and are put into uncomfortable situations for having to do so. Dirt Candy has a no-tipping policy (which existed pre-pandemic) and aims to pay its staff a living wage. In restaurants where reprimanding someone about masking could adversely affect tips, it becomes even more difficult for servers and staffers to remind patrons of the rules.

“As the people frequenting those spaces, we can make it so the server doesn’t have to make that choice and just be conscientious and wear a mask as much as we can,” Baker said, explaining that eating and drinking unmasked is fine but to think about wearing a mask when interacting with servers (during ordering, during bussing, paying the bill, etc.) and moving about the restaurant.

“It’s the conscientious thing to do. And it’s kind of a show of respect, as a way of saying ‘we don’t know each other’s vaccination status, so we’re doing what we can to take care of each other.’”

Patience is key

That narrative about caring and supporting each other extends to the relationship between diners and the restaurants they love — even beyond Covid-19 protocols.

The pandemic has seismically ravaged the dining industry, permanently shutting down many restaurants. That doesn’t just affect owners and chefs, but all the staff — the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2020, food and beverage servers make a median of $11.63 per hour, or $24,190 per year. Instead of coming to their aid, the federal government has, in your correspondent’s blunt opinion, done barely anything, and for the past year has left the fate of restaurants in diners’ wallets and the delivery companies that stack surcharge upon surcharge on restaurants.

“There were times when I certainly felt like, I’m only gonna be able to rely on my customers to get me through this. And I felt like so much of the burden all of a sudden was put on the population and not the government,” Cohen told me.

Restaurants that did survive are facing a new and not-improved financial reality. They’re making less money. That money goes to procuring ingredients, yes, but it also goes to paying all the staffers, the rent, the insurance, the electric bills, the everything, Cohen explains. And because capacity is reduced and tourism is down — depending on city or state restrictions — it’ll be a long time before many restaurants will make the kind of money they were making before the pandemic.

As we’ve learned to think about our own relationship to supporting restaurants and how fragile and important restaurants are to us, thinking about the health of the people who keeping them running is just as important.

“We’re all a little worried about serving indoors and what that’s going to be like. Because while we’re vaccinated, we’re still indoors, and not everybody who’s eating in the restaurant may be vaccinated. The risk isn’t zero,” Cohen said. “I think people forget that, and I get it. It’s been a really hard year — I’m still processing the fact that this has gone on for over a year. But you can see everybody relaxing their guard a lot, and that makes me nervous.”

Cohen urges diners to be flexible, patient, and empathetic. Restaurant staffers want to get back to “normal” life as much as, if not more than, diners do. And it helps to keep in mind that chefs and owners like Cohen as well as her colleagues and everyone in the restaurant industry are trying to hit a moving target of keeping their businesses alive, keeping their customers happy, and keeping everyone safe at the same time.

That might mean being more patient when it comes to indoor dining and waiting just a little longer for case numbers to go down and vaccination rates to go up. Each day that passes, more Americans are vaccinated. And in many parts of the country, the weather is, thankfully, allowing for safer outdoor dining.

“It’s still going to be much safer to eat outdoors,” Baker told me, explaining that distancing and crowding protocols should still be maintained outdoors. “And to the extent that you can do that and will do that, you’re not only protecting yourself and the people you’re eating with, but you’re also protecting the folks who work in those establishments — people who have had a lot of ups and downs in the last year in terms of their employment.”