Category Archives: Public Health

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought. Schools must prepare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/children-might-play-a-bigger-role-in-covid-transmission-than-first-thought-schools-must-prepare-144947?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573+Version+A+CID_8719e3ecf842bc9762e48ce42f2ba6ad&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Children%20might%20play%20a%20bigger%20role%20in%20COVID%20transmission%20than%20first%20thought%20Schools%20must%20prepare

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought—schools must prepare

Over the weekend, the World Health Organisation made an announcement you might have missed.

It recommended children aged 12 years and older should wear masks, and that masks should be considered for those aged 6-11 years. The German Society for Virology went further, recommending masks be worn by all children attending school.

This seems at odds with what we assumed about kids and COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Indeed, one positive in this pandemic so far has been that children who contract the virus typically experience mild illness. Most children don’t require hospitalisation and very few die from the disease. However, some children can develop a severe inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, although this is thankfully rare.

This generally mild picture has contributed to cases in children being overlooked. But emerging evidence suggests children might play a bigger role in transmission than originally thought. They may be equally as infectious as adults based on the amount of viral genetic material found in swabs, and we have seen large school clusters emerge in Australia and around the world.

How likely are children to be infected?

Working out how susceptible children are has been difficult. Pre-emptive school closures occurred in many countries, removing opportunities for the virus to circulate in younger age groups. Children have also missed out on testing because they typically have mild symptoms. In Australia, testing criteria were initially very restrictive. People had to have a fever or a cough to be tested, which children don’t always have. This hindered our ability to detect cases in children, and created a perception children weren’t commonly infected.

One way to address this issue is through antibody testing, which can detect evidence of past infection. A study of over 60,000 people in Spain found 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies to the virus, compared with 4.4% to 6.0% of adults. But Spain’s schools were also closed, which likely reduced children’s exposure.

Another method is to look at what happens to people living in the same household as a known case. The results of these studies are mixed. Some have suggested a lower risk for children, while others have suggested children and adults are at equal risk.

Children might have some protection compared to adults, because they have less of the enzyme which the virus uses to enter the body. So, given the same short exposure, a child might be less likely to be infected than an adult. But prolonged contact probably makes any such advantage moot.

The way in which children and adults interact in the household might explain the differences seen in some studies. This is supported by a new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and partners of a known case were more likely to be infected than other people living in the same house. This suggests the amount of close, prolonged contact may ultimately be the deciding factor.

How often do children transmit the virus?

Several studies show children and adults have similar amounts of viral RNA in their nose and throat. This suggests children and adults are equally infectious, although it’s possible children transmit the virus slightly less often than adults in practice. Because children are physically smaller and generally have more mild symptoms, they might release less of the virus.

In Italy, researchers looked at what happened to people who’d been in contact with infected children, and found the contacts of children were more likely to be infected than the contacts of adults with the virus.

Teenagers are of course closer to adults, and it’s possible younger children might be less likely to transmit the virus than older children. However, reports of outbreaks in childcare centres and primary schools suggest there’s still some risk.

What have we seen in schools?

Large clusters have been reported in schools around the world, most notably in Israel. There, an outbreak in a high school affected at least 153 students, 25 staff members, and 87 others. Interestingly, that particular outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave where students were granted an exemption from having to wear face masks, and air conditioning was used continuously.

At first glance, the Australian experience seems to suggest a small role for children in transmission. A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales in the first half of the year found limited evidence of transmission, although a large outbreak was noted to have occurred in a childcare centre.

This might seem reassuring, but it’s important to remember the majority of cases in Australia were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was limited community transmission. Also, schools switched to distance learning during the study, after which school attendance dropped to 5%. This suggests school safety is dependent on the level of community transmission.

Additionally, we shouldn’t be reassured by examples where children have not transmitted the virus to others. Approximately 80% of secondary COVID-19 cases are generated by only 10% of people. There are also many examples where adults haven’t transmitted the virus.

As community transmission has grown in Victoria, so has the significance of school clusters. The Al-Taqwa College outbreak remains one of Australia’s largest clusters. Importantly, the outbreak there has been linked to other clusters in Melbourne, including a major outbreak in the city’s public housing towers.

Close schools when community transmission is high

This evidence means we need to take a precautionary approach. When community transmission is low, face-to-face teaching is probably low-risk. But schools should switch to distance learning during periods of sustained community transmission. If we fail to address the risk of school outbreaks, they can spread into the wider community.

While most children won’t become severely ill if they contract the virus, the same cannot be said for their adult family members or their teachers. In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.

Recent recommendations on mask-wearing by older and younger children mirror risk-reduction guidelines for schools developed by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. These guidelines stress the importance of face masks, improving ventilation, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces.

The changing landscape

As the virus has spread more widely, the demographic profile of cases has changed. The virus is no longer confined to adult travellers and their contacts, and children are now commonly infected. In Germany, the proportion of children in the number of new infections is now consistent with their share of the total population.

While children are thankfully much less likely to experience severe illness than adults, we must consider who children have contact with and how they can contribute to community transmission. Unless we do, we won’t succeed in controlling the pandemic.

 

 

 

 

History tells us trying to stop diseases like COVID-19 at the border is a failed strategy

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Culture, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Failed, Failed Repeatedly, Failure, False Hope, False Narrative, Germ Theory, Health Policy, Individualism, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Partisanship, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/history-tells-us-trying-to-stop-diseases-like-covid-19-at-the-border-is-a-failed-strategy-145016?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573+Version+A+CID_8719e3ecf842bc9762e48ce42f2ba6ad&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=History%20tells%20us%20trying%20to%20stop%20diseases%20like%20COVID-19%20at%20the%20border%20is%20a%20failed%20strategy

History tells us trying to stop diseases like COVID-19 at the border is a failed strategy

To explain why the coronavirus pandemic is much worse in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, commentators have blamed the federal government’s mismanaged response and the lack of leadership from the Trump White House.

Others have pointed to our culture of individualism, the decentralized nature of our public health, and our polarized politics.

All valid explanations, but there’s another reason, much older, for the failed response: our approach to fighting infectious disease, inherited from the 19th century, has become overly focused on keeping disease out of the country through border controls.

As a professor of medical sociology, I’ve studied the response to infectious disease and public health policy. In my new book, “Diseased States,” I examine how the early experience of outbreaks in Britain and the United States shaped their current disease control systems. I believe that America’s preoccupation with border controls has hurt our nation’s ability to manage the devastation produced by a domestically occurring outbreak of disease.

Germ theory and the military

Though outbreaks of yellow fever, smallpox, and cholera occurred throughout the 19th century, the federal government didn’t take the fight against infectious disease seriously until the yellow fever outbreak of 1878. During that same year, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed the National Quarantine Act, the first federal disease control legislation.

By the early 20th century, a distinctly American approach to disease control had evolved: “New Public Health.” It was markedly different from the older European concept of public health, which emphasized sanitation and social conditions. Instead, U.S. health officials were fascinated by the newly popular “germ theory,” which theorized that microorganisms, too small to be seen by the naked eye, caused disease. The U.S. became focused on isolating the infectious. The typhoid carrier Mary Mallon, known as “Typhoid Mary,” was isolated on New York’s Brother Island for 23 years of her life.

Originally, the military managed disease control. After the yellow fever outbreak, the U.S. Marine Hospital Service (MHS) was charged with operating maritime quarantine stations countrywide. In 1912, the MHS became the U.S. Public Health Service; to this day, that includes the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps led by the surgeon general. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started as a military organization during World War II, as the Malaria Control in War Areas program. Connecting the military to disease control promoted the notion that an attack of infectious disease was like an invasion of a foreign enemy.

Germ theory and military management put the U.S. system of disease control down a path in which it prioritized border controls and quarantine throughout the 20th century. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, New York City held all incoming ships at quarantine stations and forcibly removed sick passengers into isolation to a local hospital. Other states followed suit. In Minnesota, the city of Minneapolis isolated all flu patients in a special ward of the city hospital and then denied them visitors. During the 1980s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service denied HIV-positive persons from entering the country and tested over three million potential immigrants for HIV.

Defending the nation from the external threat of disease generally meant stopping the potentially infectious from ever entering the country and isolating those who were able to gain entry.

Our mistakes

This continues to be our predominant strategy in the 21st century. One of President Trump’s first coronavirus actions was to enforce a travel ban on China and then to limit travel from Europe.

His actions were nothing new. In 2014, during the Ebola outbreak, California, New York and New Jersey created laws to forcibly quarantine health care workers returning from west Africa. New Jersey put this into practice when it isolated U.S. nurse Kaci Hickox after she returned from Sierra Leone, where she was treating Ebola patients.

In 2007, responding to pandemic influenza, the Department of Homeland Security and the CDC developed a “do not board” list to stop potentially infected people from traveling to the U.S.

When such actions stop outbreaks from occurring, they are obviously sound public policy. But when a global outbreak is so large that it’s impossible to keep out, then border controls and quarantine are no longer useful.

This is what has happened with the coronavirus. With today’s globalization, international travel, and an increasing number of pandemics, attempting to keep infectious disease from ever entering the country looks more and more like a futile effort.

Moreover, the U.S. preoccupation with border controls means we did not invest as much as we should have in limiting the internal spread of COVID-19. Unlike countries that mounted an effective response, the U.S. has lagged behind in testing, contact tracing, and the development of a robust health care system able to handle a surge of infected patients. The longstanding focus on stopping an outbreak from ever occurring left us more vulnerable when it inevitably did.

For decades, the U.S. has been underfunding public health. When “swine flu” struck the country in 2009, the CDC said 159 million doses of flu shots were needed to cover “high risk” groups, particularly health care workers and pregnant women. We only produced 32 million doses. And in a pronouncement that now looks prescient, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report said if the swine flu outbreak had been any worse, U.S. health departments would have been overwhelmed. By the time Ebola appeared in 2014, the situation was no better. Once again, multiple government reports slammed our response to the outbreak.

Many causes exist for the U.S.‘s failed response to this crisis. But part of the problem lies with our past battles with disease. By emphasizing border controls and quarantine, the U.S. has disregarded more practical strategies of disease control. We can’t change the past, but by learning from it, we can develop more effective ways of dealing with future outbreaks.

 

 

 

 

Six months ago, Trump said that coronavirus cases would soon go to zero. They … didn’t.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Blame, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Emergency Preparedness, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Expert, Expert Opinion, Failed, Failed Repeatedly, Failure, False Hope, False Narrative, Honesty, Integrity, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/six-months-ago-trump-said-that-coronavirus-cases-would-soon-go-zero-they-didnt/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-yqYYel73YR3zJXfqtn25DXNEA8Yi1qc0L0RQ3PNP-NqUJ299PFNdeWc

 

But with new constraints on testing, Trump may get his wish eventually.

It was exactly six months ago Wednesday when the spread of the coronavirus in the United States had become too significant for President Trump to wave away. He and several members of the team planning the administration’s response held a news briefing designed to inform the public about the virus and, more important, to allay concerns.

This was the briefing in which Trump made one of his most wildly incorrect assertions about what the country could expect.

“The level that we’ve had in our country is very low,” Trump said, referring to new confirmed infections, “and those people are getting better, or we think that in almost all cases they’re better, or getting. We have a total of 15. We took in some from Japan — you heard about that — because they’re American citizens, and they’re in quarantine.”

That part was generally true. At the time, there had been only a smattering of confirmed cases, with the addition of passengers from the cruise ship Diamond Princess pushing the confirmed total to more than 50.

“So, again,” he added later, “when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

It was a brash prediction and seemingly an off-the-cuff one. Trump’s point was less about what was going to happen than arguing that his administration had done a good job. But by linking those two things, he made it simple for observers to use his assertion that the number of cases would fade as a baseline for measuring everything that followed.

Over time, more cases from the period before Feb. 26 would be discovered, including two early deaths in California from covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. There were actually almost 200 cases that would eventually be confirmed by the time Trump was saying the country would go from 15 to zero.

The experts standing behind Trump would have known that Trump’s claims were inaccurate. As the briefing was underway, The Washington Post reported a confirmed case of “community spread” — a documented infection that couldn’t be traced to international travel. In other words, it was uncontained: The virus was moving from person to person without impediment or detection.

Although about 200 cases in that period eventually would be confirmed, even that number was far lower than the reality. Researchers can use documented cases to estimate the number of cases that weren’t being detected and that also weren’t later confirmed through testing. For example, an estimate produced by data scientist Youyang Gu puts the likely number of new infections on Feb. 26 somewhere in the range of 13,000 to 25,000.

On that day alone.

Within a month, the country would go from Trump’s 15 cases to nearly 88,000 cases. By April 26, the total was nearly a million. By May 26, 1.7 million. The most recent total is north of 5.7 million.

That steady increase is in part a function of Trump repeating the same mistake over and over, portraying the pandemic as ending or functionally ended. As cases faded a bit in May and June, he pushed for a return to normal economic activity, triggering a new surge in confirmed cases. That second increase has been fading for about a month, happily, but the country is still adding 33 percent more confirmed new cases each day than it did at the peak in April.

That’s confirmed cases, a metric that relies on testing. Gu’s estimates of the actual spread of the virus put the country about 40 percent below the peak in daily new cases, which was reached in early July.

Trump, of course, blames testing for revealing the scale of the pandemic in the first place. He has a point, in a way: Had the United States never managed to solve its problems with testing, something that took weeks, there wouldn’t have been millions of confirmed cases. There would still have been millions of cases or, perhaps, tens of millions of cases. We just wouldn’t have known how many there were.

It has been about two months since Trump held a political rally in Tulsa, contributing to a new surge of cases in the city. There, he made a tongue-in-cheek reference to asking his team to slow down on testing, because it was pushing the number of confirmed cases higher. As they say, though, each joke contains a grain of truth, and it was clear that Trump, in fact, would be happy to see the number of tests drop so that the number of confirmed cases did as well.

Data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project show that he has gotten his wish, to a degree. Over the past month, the number of tests being completed each day in the United States has dropped by nearly one-fifth.

Part of this is a function of interference from natural disasters, with storms in Florida and fires in California limiting testing capacity. Part of it, too, is probably a function of the drop in the number of cases coming back positive. Fewer new cases means fewer people feeling sick and seeking tests to confirm an infection. The drop in the percent of tests coming back positive reinforces that trend.

But, increasingly, part of it will stem from the administration de-emphasizing testing. New guidance published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that those who had been in contact with an infected person no longer needed to be tested, particularly when asymptomatic.

This, too, has been something Trump has talked about a lot, complaining that people without symptoms were being tested and confirmed as positive — and added to the total number of infections.

“Many of those cases are young people that would heal in a day,” Trump said in an interview on July 19. “They have the sniffles and we put it down as a test.”

The reason it’s important to track asymptomatic cases, of course, is that those people can still infect others. To defeat the pandemic, we need to contain it, and the new CDC approach runs the significant risk of leaving large holes in that containment effort. But, with the presidential election only about 70 days away, it will mean fewer confirmed cases.

The irony of Trump’s complaints about the virus from the outset is that the United States’ confirmed infection totals already have been minimized because of limited testing. The reason Trump was able to claim that there were only 15 cases six months ago was that the administration had spent the month since the first confirmed case in the country unable to put together a robust testing regimen that would allow the virus to be constrained. South Korea, where such a regimen was quickly implemented, actually did see its virus numbers drop to near zero.

In other words, Trump’s prediction was not only wrong, it was wrong in large part because Trump’s team hadn’t done what would have been needed to make it come true. Trump portrays himself as an unwitting victim of the pandemic, but his comment six months ago Wednesday is a good reminder that he can put a lot of the blame for his position on himself.

 

 

 

Declining antibodies and immunity to COVID-19 – why the worry?

Posted on by • Posted in Antibodies, Asymptomatic Transmission, Coronavirus, Immune System - Adaptive, Immune System - Innate, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Scientists, Social Distancing, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/declining-antibodies-and-immunity-to-covid-19-why-the-worry-143323?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2026%202020%20-%201713516549&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2026%202020%20-%201713516549+Version+A+CID_ca860340297de2ef2c2c85020b74576b&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Declining%20antibodies%20and%20immunity%20to%20COVID-19%20%20why%20the%20worry

Most people are aware that testing for antibodies in a person’s blood can show if someone has had a specific disease, such as COVID-19. Those antibodies provide protection from getting the disease again.

But in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that antibody levels decline in individuals who have recovered from COVID-19, dropping by half every 36 days. Does that mean people who have recovered from COVID-19 have lost their immunity?

I am a geneticist interested in innate immune response – the part of the immune system that we have at birth – and how the innate immune cells “educate” antibody-producing cells about a pathogen and how to identify and destroy it. As I’ll explain, antibodies are important for immunity, but they aren’t the only factor that counts.

Two arms of the immune system

The immune system is made up of two parts: innate immunity and adaptive – or acquired – immunity.

The innate immune system, which includes white blood cells called dendritic cells, monocytes and neutrophils, is present at birth and responds instantly to invaders. This group of white blood cells bombard pathogens with destructive chemicals and swallow and destroy viruses and bacteria. The innate immune system provides an instantaneous reaction to a pathogen. The problem is that it’s a blunt instrument – it responds the same way to all perceived threats.

The adaptive immune system, which is made up of B cells and T cells, must learn about a pathogen and its characteristics from the innate immune cells. This system takes longer to kick in, but the up side is that it is very specific and in many cases lasts a lifetime.

The immune system’s memory

The history of pathogen exposure is carried in so-called memory T cells and memory B cells. When an infection is defeated and gone, these cells reside in the peripheral tissues of the body such as lymph nodes or spleen and serve as a memory of the disease-causing virus. This immunological memory is responsible for the host defense and kicks into action in case of the second wave or attack of the pathogen.

It is normal for antibody levels to decline after a person has recovered from a disease. But the New England Journal of Medicine paper raised concerns because it suggests that we are losing our immunological memory – which is as bad as losing a real memory.

What role do T cells play in immunity?

B cells and antibodies are only part of the immune response. T cells help B cells produce antibodies – which are proteins that can bind to a specific pathogen and destroy it.

The way this happens is that first the B cells swallow the virus and start producing antibodies.

T cells cannot swallow the virus. But a type of white blood cell called an antigen-presenting cell can. After it does, it “shows” different parts of the virus to the T cells. The T cells then learn about the virus which they can now seek and destroy.

T cells also stick to the B cells and send them the activation signals that help B cells ramp up antibody production.

If antibodies decline, what does this mean for COVID-19 immunity?

It suggests that when there are fewer antibodies in the blood, there is a greater chance that a number of individual virus particles, called virions, will survive and escape destruction. Therefore, the remaining virions will continue to proliferate and cause disease.

What do declining antibody levels mean for establishing herd immunity?

Herd immunity refers to a population and occurs when a sufficiently high number of people within a community are immune to the virus and incapable of transmitting it. That provides protection for those who are still vulnerable. For example, if 60% of people are protected against COVID – because they have survived the infection and carry antibodies – it might protect (via less frequent interactions) the remaining 40% from getting sick.

But the results in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest that people with lower levels of antibody may still have the virus and may not have symptoms of the disease.

That means that if these people with low antibody levels hang around healthy, uninfected people, they present a danger to them because they can transmit the virus.

When antibody levels fall, does immunity disappear?

In general, the answer is no. If the virus attempts to cause a second infection, the memory B and T cells are able to recognize it, multiply million of times and defend the body against the virus, preventing it from triggering another full-blown infection.

The protection provided by memory T and B cells is the reason that vaccine-based protection works.

However, there are exceptions. A lifelong vaccine against the flu does not work because flu’s genetic code changes rapidly, altering the appearance of the flu, and therefore requires a new vaccine every season.

But with SARS-CoV-2, the problem as I see it, seems to be that those memory T cells and B cells seem to be wiped out.

Antibodies are proteins and last for only between three and four weeks in the blood circulation. To keep antibody levels high, B cells need to replenish them with a fresh supply. But in COVID-19, the declining antibody levels suggest that the cells that produce these antibodies are not present in sufficient numbers, which would explain the drop in antibody levels. Studies of how long immunity from COVID-19 last may shed more light, but for now we do not know the reason why.

 

 

 

 

Cartoon – Pandemic Stages of Grief

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Angry, Cartoon, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Denial, Depression, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, False Hope, False Narrative, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

Cartoon by Sally-Covid 19 Pandemic Stages of Grief |

Contact tracing stopped at the country club gates

Posted on by • Posted in Asymptomatic Transmission, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Pandemic, Privacy, Public Health, Public Safety, Public Schools, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Superspreader, Superspreader Event, Superspreading Events • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0e13b5a09ec5/the-weekly-gist-august-21-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Neo Classical Country Club Estate - $8,300,000 | Entrance gates ...

From downtown New Orleans to the tony suburbs of New York, post-graduation parties and summer gatherings drawing dozens of teens have become loci of COVID infections around the country.

Taking a look inside one prep-school-party COVID cluster, an article in the New Yorker recounts the reverberations from graduation parties turned superspreader events at an exclusive Atlanta private school.

Spurred by a false sense of security (“We don’t live in New York,” one dad said) and Georgia’s early reopening orders, several families at the Lovett School held graduation parties, some with as many as 50 attendees.

The school received its first report of a student testing positive four days after attending the graduation festivities. A growing cluster of infections became evident as more cases came to light, including among students who posted TikTok videos to announce their positive test results. Lovett’s school nurse began ad-hoc contact tracing, finding 23 positive cases on her first day of searching.

But Fulton County contact tracers were met with fierce resistance from parents, with the vast majority of those contacted declining to talk. The school provided students’ contact information, but said it couldn’t cooperate with tracers further due to privacy regulations.

There are many reasons that individuals might be reticent to participate in contact tracing, such as fear of losing a job, or worries about immigration status. But the resistance of wealthy, highly educated “prep school parents” to contact tracing is shocking. Public health efforts will continue to be stymied as long as the instinct to protect individual and school reputations from the perceived stigma of infection outweighs the greater good—the health of the community.

 

 

 

 

When COVID infection becomes a chronic disease

Posted on by • Posted in Asymptomatic Transmission, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Chronic Fatigue, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Post-Covid Care, Post-Covid Syndrome, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0e13b5a09ec5/the-weekly-gist-august-21-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Long COVID-19' a reality; 75 per cent patients suffer from ...

The minimal evidence of serious impact of COVID infection on young healthy individuals has been one of the bright spots of this pandemic. Overall, only a small percentage of those infected, mostly the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions, get very sick, and an even smaller number die.

But a new piece in The Atlantic lays out mounting evidence that many younger patients don’t spring back to good health after a few weeks, as common wisdom suggests; instead, they experience debilitating long-term effects, months after infection. The profile of the average patient with “Long-COVID” is just 44 years old, and previously fit and healthy.

She (the condition is much more common in women) likely suffered a mild initial infection. But now, months later, she still faces a wide range of symptoms. Some patients have significant chronic pulmonary or cardiac function abnormalities (like Georgia State’s star freshman quarterback recruit, sidelined for the year with post-COVID myocarditis).

But others are dealing with a different, but just as debilitating, set of symptoms resembling chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

And like CFS patients, many COVID “long-haulers” find their symptoms minimized by their doctors. Early studies show that large numbers of patients may be affected: in a series of 270 non-hospitalized patients, the CDC found a full third hadn’t returned to their usual health after two weeks (as compared to just 10 percent of influenza patients).

A handful of centers have taken the first step toward better understanding “Long-COVID”, establishing dedicated clinics to study and treat the growing number of patients for whom COVID-19 is turning out to be a chronic disease, leaving a wave of people with long-term disabilities in its wake.

 

 

 

The kids are not all right

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Childcare, Children's Health, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Primary Care, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, Vaccination • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0e13b5a09ec5/the-weekly-gist-august-21-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Many children heading back to school—in whichever form that that may take this fall—have skipped their annual visit to the pediatrician. The graphic above highlights the sluggish rebound in pediatric ambulatory volume. While adult primary care visits have mostly bounced back, pediatric visits are still 26 percent below pre-COVID levels.

The drop in visits early in the pandemic also impacted immunizations, with 2.5M regular childhood vaccinations missed in the US during the first quarter of 2020—and early data suggests those seem to be rebounding at a similarly anemic rate.

This lack of pediatric routine care is particularly worrisome as COVID-19 cases in children are climbing, with a 90 percent increase from July to August. Though most of the nation’s largest public school districts have opted to begin the school year with online learning, some districts have already returned to in-person classes, and, unsurprisingly, new cases are already being reported.

While COVID-19 is normally neither severe nor fatal in children, infections among school-age kids put others at risk. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly a quarter of teachers (1.5M) are considered high-risk and almost six percent of seniors (3.3M) live with school-aged children.

Without the traditional back-to-school push for well-child visits, sports physicals, and immunization updates, healthcare providers must think creatively about how to give children with the care they need, whether through personalized communication from pediatricians that assuages parental concerns about office safety, or through more innovative means such as drive-thru vaccination services.

 

 

 

It looks like what happens in Vegas isn’t staying in Vegas.

Posted on by • Posted in Asymptomatic Transmission, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy Reopening, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2020/08/21/las-vegas-may-be-a-superspreader-hot-spot-new-study-suggests/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=coronavirus&cdlcid=5d2c97df953109375e4d8b68#506ae817484d

Travelers returning from the Covid-19 hot spot are potentially spreading the virus to virtually every state in the nation, according to a new mobility data study conducted on behalf of the non-profit investigative news organization ProPublica.

The findings highlight the connection between travelers and the spread of the virus during the pandemic.

The ProPublica study looked at a total of 12 days of cellphone data in three batches: four days in May, when Nevada was still shut down; four days in June, just after Las Vegas reopened to tourism; and four days in mid-July. In May, travel from Las Vegas was mainly regional. But since Las Vegas reopened in early June, the mobility of smartphones leaving Las Vegas has become progressively more widespread and nationalized.

Over the final four-day period, in July, the study identified 26,000 smartphones on the Las Vegas Strip, many of which later appeared in 47 states within the same four-day period — every state in the continental United States except Maine.

“About 3,700 of the devices were spotted in Southern California in the same four days; about 2,700 in Arizona, with 740 in Phoenix; around 1,000 in Texas; more than 800 in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland; and more than 100 in the New York area,” reported ProPublica.

While the study did not determine how many of these travelers were infected with Covid-19 when they returned to their home states, it is reasonable to assume that many were. For the past several months, Las Vegas has been a hot spot for the disease.

Las Vegas is located in Clark County, Nevada, which is currently struggling with one of the highest rates of new COVID-19 infections in the country, with 26.9 new daily cases per 100,000 people tested over a rolling seven-day average, according to the Harvard Global Health Institute’s Covid-19 tracker. Any community with over 25 new daily cases is deemed to be at a tipping point where stay-at-home orders are necessary, according to Harvard researchers.

This isn’t the first data-driven study to show how travelers are spreading Covid-19 across the United States. In early July, the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) released research indicating that the novel coronavirus was spreading along the nation’s interstate highways.

“Travel is certainly a huge driving factor,” the researchers wrote at the time. “We see spread along I-80 between central Illinois and Iowa, as well as along the I-90 corridor across upstate New York.” They pointed to a rise in cases along the I-95 corridor and concluded that interstate travel was creating renewed risk to regions like the Northeast that had successfully flattened the curve of the novel coronavirus.

Yesterday, Clark County’s Twitter account announced a grim milestone: The number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 in the community has now topped 1,000.

 

 

 

 

Why Most Voters Oppose Schools Reopening

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/08/21/why-most-voters-oppose-schools-reopening/#2df43b5b1822

Why Most Voters Oppose Schools Reopening

Even as test rates hover around six to seven percent and tens of thousands of new Covid-19 cases are being reported daily, school districts across the country will continue with plans to resume operations in the coming weeks. The latest survey data shows, however, that most Americans oppose reopening K-12 education in their states.

Parents have reason to be concerned that sending their children to school could bring the virus into their homes, as well as spike positivity rates in their communities. From July 30th to August 13th, over 75,000 new child Covid-19 cases were reported, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The outcome would be disastrous were even one asymptomatic carrier to attend classes in the coming weeks.

A recent survey conducted by the Financial Times-Peterson Foundation US Economic Monitor revealed that six in ten voters oppose reopening K-12 schools in their states, while as many as 81 percent urge the prioritization of health among students and faculty over the economy. Were children to get sick at school, not only would their health be endangered, but so would the health of their families. There would be no economy without healthy parents, which is why the vast majority of Americans urge the safety of American students over the state of the economy.

One of the more prudent concerns about the resumption of K-12 education is the social nature of a student’s daily life. School districts are assuring parents that they have put preventative measures in place, such as social distancing and classroom hybridization. But to assume students will have no interaction at all seems ludicrous. Children and teens have been out of the traditional school setting for over five months and they will be ready to interact with others. 

Despite the urge shared by parents and children alike to return to normal, the average voter realizes that the pandemic in the United States is far from over. Parents want their children to stay healthy for many reasons—to ensure the physical health and wellbeing of the family, to ensure the economic livelihood of the family, and to avoid the unknown long term health risks associated with Covid-19. Around 65 percent of voters believe social distancing requirements and non essential business restrictions should be in place for at least another three months—a sacrifice many are willing to make for the sake of their families and children.

Such statistics also show that people recognize there will be several more months of abnormality and want decision makers to take action accordingly, even if it means deprioritizing the economy. Families and individuals have been economically crippled by the pandemic and the US government’s lack of public assistance. The official unemployment rate still hovers around ten percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Low income families are struggling and eviction rates are sure to spike as rent moratoriums expire. These families have enough to worry about without the added pressure of sending their children back to school at this time.

The reopening of K-12 school districts in the coming weeks presents medical and economic challenges for families in the pandemic era, especially those already disadvantaged or experiencing hardship. Societal immunity is a long way off; as thirty five percent of voters said they would not be likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine were one approved and available by the end of the year, meaning children of those thirty five percent would also be unlikely to get vaccinated. With the inability to ensure the health and safety of students and the unknown economic future to come, schools are better off staying online for the time being.