COVID-19 Updates

The COVID-19 pandemic has given hospitalists a time to shine. Perhaps few people see – and value – this more than the hospital medicine administrators who work to support them behind the scenes.

“I’m very proud to have been given this opportunity to serve alongside these wonderful hospitalists,” said Elda Dede, FHM, hospital medicine division administrator at the University of Kentucky Healthcare in Lexington, Ky.

As with everything else in U.S. health care, the pandemic has affected hospital medicine administrators planning for 2021 and subsequent years in a big way. Despite all the challenges, some organizations are maintaining equilibrium, while others are even expanding. And intertwined through it all is a bright outlook and a distinct sense of team support.
 

Pandemic impacts on 2021 planning

Though the Texas Health Physicians Group (THPG) in Fort Worth is part of Texas Health Resources (THR), Ajay Kharbanda, MBA, SFHM, vice president of practice operations at THPG, said that each hospital within the THR system decides who that hospital will contract with for hospitalist services. Because the process is competitive and there’s no guarantee that THPG will get the contract each time, THPG has a large focus on the value they can bring to the hospitals they serve and the patients they care for.

“Having our physicians engaged with their hospital entity leaders was extremely important this year with planning around COVID because multiple hospitals had to create new COVID units,” said Mr. Kharbanda.

With the pressure of not enough volume early in the pandemic, other hospitalist groups were forced to cut back on staffing. “Within our health system, we made the cultural decision not to cancel any shifts or cut back on staffing because we didn’t want our hospitalists to be impacted negatively by things that were out of their control,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

This commitment to their hospitalists paid off when there was a surge of patients during the last quarter of 2020. “We were struggling to ensure there were adequate physicians available to take care of the patients in the hospital, but because we did the right thing by our physicians in the beginning, people did whatever it took to make sure there was enough staffing available for that increased patient volume,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

The first priority for University of Kentucky Healthcare is patient care, said Ms. Dede. Before the pandemic, the health system already had a two-layer jeopardy system in place to deal with scheduling needs in case a staff member couldn’t come in. “For the pandemic, we created six teams with an escalation and de-escalation pattern so that we could be ready to face whatever changes came in,” Ms. Dede said. Thankfully, the community wasn’t hit very hard by COVID-19, so the six new teams ended up being unnecessary, “but we were fully prepared, and everybody was ready to go.”

Making staffing plans amidst all the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic was a big challenge in planning for 2021, said Tiffani Panek, CLHM, SFHM, hospital medicine division administrator at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, in Baltimore. “We don’t know what next week is going to look like, let alone what two or three months from now is going to look like, so we’ve really had to learn to be flexible,” she said. No longer is there just a Plan A that can be adjusted as needed; now there has to be a Plan B, C, and D as well.

Because the hospital medicine division’s budget is tied to the hospital, Ms. Panek said there hasn’t been a negative impact. “The hospital supports the program and continues to support the program, regardless of COVID,” she said. The health system as a whole did have to reduce benefits and freeze raises temporarily to ensure employees could keep their jobs. However, she said they have been fortunate in that their staff has been able to – and will continue to – stay in place.

As with others, volume fluctuation was an enormous hurdle in 2021 planning, said Larissa Smith, adult hospitalist and palliative care manager at The Salem Health Medical Group, Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics, in Salem, Ore. “It’s really highlighted the continued need for us to be agile in how we structure and operationalize our staffing,” Ms. Smith said. “Adapting to volume fluctuations has been our main focus.”

To prepare for both high and low patient volumes in 2021 and be able to adjust accordingly, The Salem Health Medical Group finalized in December 2020 what they call “team efficiency plans.” These plans consist of four primary areas: surge capacity, low census planning, right providers and right patient collaboration, and right team size.

Ms. Smith is working on the “right providers and right patient collaboration” component with the trauma and acute care, vascular, and general surgery teams to figure out the best ways to utilize hospitalists and specialists. “It’s been really great collaboration,” she said.
 

Administrative priorities during COVID-19

The pandemic hasn’t changed Ms. Panek’s administrative priorities, which include making sure her staff has whatever they need to do their jobs and that her providers have administrative support. “The work that’s had to be done to fulfill those priorities has changed in light of COVID though,” she said.

For example, she and her staff are all still off site, which she said has been challenging, especially given the lack of preparation they had. “In order to support my staff and to make sure they aren’t getting overwhelmed by being at home, that means my job looks a little bit different, but it doesn’t change my priorities,” said Ms. Panek.

By mid-summer, Ms. Dede said her main priority has been onboarding new team members, which she said is difficult with so many meetings being held virtually. “I’m not walking around the hallways with these people and having opportunities to get feedback about how their onboarding is going, so engaging so many new team members organically into the culture, the vision, the goals of our practice, is a challenge,” she said.

Taking advantage of opportunities for hospital medicine is another administrative priority for Ms. Dede. “For us to be able to take a seat at every possible table where decisions are being made, participate in shaping the strategic vision of the entire institution and be an active player in bringing that vision to life,” she said. “I feel like this is a crucial moment for hospitalists.”

Lean work, which includes the new team efficiency plans, is an administrative priority for Ms. Smith, as it is for the entire organization. “I would say that my biggest priority is just supporting our team,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve been on a resiliency journey for a couple years.”

Their resiliency work involves periodic team training courtesy of Bryan Sexton, PhD, director of the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality. The goal of resiliency is to strengthen positive emotion, which enables a quicker recovery when difficulties occur. “I can’t imagine where we would be, this far into the pandemic, without that work,” said Ms. Smith. “I think it has really set us up to weather the storm, literally and figuratively.”

Ensuring the well-being of his provider group’s physicians is a high administrative priority for Mr. Kharbanda. Considering that the work they’ve always done is difficult, and the pandemic has been going on for such a long time, hospitalists are stretched thin. “We are bringing some additional resources to our providers that relate to taking care of themselves and helping them cope with the additional shifts,” Mr. Kharbanda said.
 

Going forward

The hospital medicine team at University of Kentucky Healthcare was already in the process of planning and adopting a new funds flow model, which increases the budget for HM, when the pandemic hit. “This is actually very good timing for us,” noted Ms. Dede. “We are currently working on building a new incentive model that maximizes engagement and academic productivity for our physicians, which in turn, will allow their careers to flourish and the involvement with enterprise leadership to increase.”

They had also planned to expand their teams and services before the pandemic, so in 2021, they’re hiring “an unprecedented number of hospitalists,” Ms. Dede said.

Mr. Kharbanda said that COVID has shown how much impact hospitalists can have on a hospital’s success, which has further highlighted their value. “Most of our programs are holding steady and we have some growth expected at some of our entities, so for those sites, we are hiring,” he said. Budget-wise, he expected to feel the pandemic’s impact for the first half of 2021, but for the second half, he hopes to return to normal.

Other than some low volumes in the spring, Salem Health has mostly maintained its typical capacities and funds. “Obviously, we don’t have control over external forces that impact health care, but we really try to home in on how we utilize our resources,” said Ms. Smith. “We’re a financially secure organization and I think our lean work really drives that.” The Salem Hospital is currently expanding a building tower to add another 150 beds, giving them more than 600 beds. “That will make us the largest hospital in Oregon,” Ms. Smith said.
 

Positive takeaways from the pandemic

Ms. Dede feels that hospital medicine has entered the health care spotlight with regard to hospitalists’ role in caring for patients during the pandemic. “Every challenge is an opportunity for growth and an opportunity to show that you know what you’re made of,” she said. “If there was ever doubt that the hospitalists are the beating heart of the hospital, this doubt is now gone. Hospitalists have, and will continue to, shoulder most of the care for COVID patients.”

The pandemic has also presented an opportunity at University of Kentucky Healthcare that helps accomplish both physician and hospital goals. “Hospital medicine is currently being asked to staff units and to participate in leadership committees, so this has been a great opportunity for growth for us,” Ms. Dede said.

The flexibility her team has shown has been a positive outcome for Ms. Panek. “You never really know what you’re going to be capable of doing until you have to do it,” she said. “I’m really proud of my group of administrative staff for how well that they’ve handled this considering it was supposed to be temporary. It’s really shown just how amazing the members of our team are and I think sometimes we take that for granted. COVID has made it so you don’t take things for granted anymore.”

Mr. Kharbanda sees how the pandemic has brought his hospitalist team together. Now, “it’s more like a family,” he said. “I think having the conversations around well-being and family safety were the real value as we learn to survive the pandemic. That was beautiful to see.”

The resiliency work her organization has done has helped Ms. Smith find plenty of positives in the face of the pandemic. “We are really resilient in health care and we can adapt quickly, but also safely,” she said.

Ms. Smith said the pandemic has also brought about changes for the better that will likely be permanent, like having time-saving virtual meetings and working from home. “We’ve put a lot of resources into physical structures and that takes away value from patients,” said Ms. Smith. “If we’re able to shift people in different roles to work from home, that just creates more future value for our community.”

Ms. Dede also sees the potential benefits that stem from people’s newfound comfort with video conferencing. “You can basically have grand rounds presenters from anywhere in the world,” she said. “You don’t have to fly them in, you don’t have to host them and have a whole program for a couple of days. They can talk to your people for an hour from the comfort of their home. I feel that we should take advantage of this too.”

Ms. Dede believes that expanding telehealth options and figuring out how hospitals can maximize that use is a priority right now. “Telehealth has been on the minds of so many hospital medicine practices, but there were still so many questions without answers about how to implement it,” she said. “During the pandemic, we were forced to find those solutions, but a lot of the barriers we are faced with have not been eliminated. I would recommend that groups keep their eyes open for new technological solutions that may empower your expansion into telehealth.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has given hospitalists a time to shine. Perhaps few people see – and value – this more than the hospital medicine administrators who work to support them behind the scenes.

“I’m very proud to have been given this opportunity to serve alongside these wonderful hospitalists,” said Elda Dede, FHM, hospital medicine division administrator at the University of Kentucky Healthcare in Lexington, Ky.

As with everything else in U.S. health care, the pandemic has affected hospital medicine administrators planning for 2021 and subsequent years in a big way. Despite all the challenges, some organizations are maintaining equilibrium, while others are even expanding. And intertwined through it all is a bright outlook and a distinct sense of team support.
 

Pandemic impacts on 2021 planning

Though the Texas Health Physicians Group (THPG) in Fort Worth is part of Texas Health Resources (THR), Ajay Kharbanda, MBA, SFHM, vice president of practice operations at THPG, said that each hospital within the THR system decides who that hospital will contract with for hospitalist services. Because the process is competitive and there’s no guarantee that THPG will get the contract each time, THPG has a large focus on the value they can bring to the hospitals they serve and the patients they care for.

“Having our physicians engaged with their hospital entity leaders was extremely important this year with planning around COVID because multiple hospitals had to create new COVID units,” said Mr. Kharbanda.

With the pressure of not enough volume early in the pandemic, other hospitalist groups were forced to cut back on staffing. “Within our health system, we made the cultural decision not to cancel any shifts or cut back on staffing because we didn’t want our hospitalists to be impacted negatively by things that were out of their control,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

This commitment to their hospitalists paid off when there was a surge of patients during the last quarter of 2020. “We were struggling to ensure there were adequate physicians available to take care of the patients in the hospital, but because we did the right thing by our physicians in the beginning, people did whatever it took to make sure there was enough staffing available for that increased patient volume,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

The first priority for University of Kentucky Healthcare is patient care, said Ms. Dede. Before the pandemic, the health system already had a two-layer jeopardy system in place to deal with scheduling needs in case a staff member couldn’t come in. “For the pandemic, we created six teams with an escalation and de-escalation pattern so that we could be ready to face whatever changes came in,” Ms. Dede said. Thankfully, the community wasn’t hit very hard by COVID-19, so the six new teams ended up being unnecessary, “but we were fully prepared, and everybody was ready to go.”

Making staffing plans amidst all the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic was a big challenge in planning for 2021, said Tiffani Panek, CLHM, SFHM, hospital medicine division administrator at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, in Baltimore. “We don’t know what next week is going to look like, let alone what two or three months from now is going to look like, so we’ve really had to learn to be flexible,” she said. No longer is there just a Plan A that can be adjusted as needed; now there has to be a Plan B, C, and D as well.

Because the hospital medicine division’s budget is tied to the hospital, Ms. Panek said there hasn’t been a negative impact. “The hospital supports the program and continues to support the program, regardless of COVID,” she said. The health system as a whole did have to reduce benefits and freeze raises temporarily to ensure employees could keep their jobs. However, she said they have been fortunate in that their staff has been able to – and will continue to – stay in place.

As with others, volume fluctuation was an enormous hurdle in 2021 planning, said Larissa Smith, adult hospitalist and palliative care manager at The Salem Health Medical Group, Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics, in Salem, Ore. “It’s really highlighted the continued need for us to be agile in how we structure and operationalize our staffing,” Ms. Smith said. “Adapting to volume fluctuations has been our main focus.”

To prepare for both high and low patient volumes in 2021 and be able to adjust accordingly, The Salem Health Medical Group finalized in December 2020 what they call “team efficiency plans.” These plans consist of four primary areas: surge capacity, low census planning, right providers and right patient collaboration, and right team size.

Ms. Smith is working on the “right providers and right patient collaboration” component with the trauma and acute care, vascular, and general surgery teams to figure out the best ways to utilize hospitalists and specialists. “It’s been really great collaboration,” she said.
 

Administrative priorities during COVID-19

The pandemic hasn’t changed Ms. Panek’s administrative priorities, which include making sure her staff has whatever they need to do their jobs and that her providers have administrative support. “The work that’s had to be done to fulfill those priorities has changed in light of COVID though,” she said.

For example, she and her staff are all still off site, which she said has been challenging, especially given the lack of preparation they had. “In order to support my staff and to make sure they aren’t getting overwhelmed by being at home, that means my job looks a little bit different, but it doesn’t change my priorities,” said Ms. Panek.

By mid-summer, Ms. Dede said her main priority has been onboarding new team members, which she said is difficult with so many meetings being held virtually. “I’m not walking around the hallways with these people and having opportunities to get feedback about how their onboarding is going, so engaging so many new team members organically into the culture, the vision, the goals of our practice, is a challenge,” she said.

Taking advantage of opportunities for hospital medicine is another administrative priority for Ms. Dede. “For us to be able to take a seat at every possible table where decisions are being made, participate in shaping the strategic vision of the entire institution and be an active player in bringing that vision to life,” she said. “I feel like this is a crucial moment for hospitalists.”

Lean work, which includes the new team efficiency plans, is an administrative priority for Ms. Smith, as it is for the entire organization. “I would say that my biggest priority is just supporting our team,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve been on a resiliency journey for a couple years.”

Their resiliency work involves periodic team training courtesy of Bryan Sexton, PhD, director of the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality. The goal of resiliency is to strengthen positive emotion, which enables a quicker recovery when difficulties occur. “I can’t imagine where we would be, this far into the pandemic, without that work,” said Ms. Smith. “I think it has really set us up to weather the storm, literally and figuratively.”

Ensuring the well-being of his provider group’s physicians is a high administrative priority for Mr. Kharbanda. Considering that the work they’ve always done is difficult, and the pandemic has been going on for such a long time, hospitalists are stretched thin. “We are bringing some additional resources to our providers that relate to taking care of themselves and helping them cope with the additional shifts,” Mr. Kharbanda said.
 

Going forward

The hospital medicine team at University of Kentucky Healthcare was already in the process of planning and adopting a new funds flow model, which increases the budget for HM, when the pandemic hit. “This is actually very good timing for us,” noted Ms. Dede. “We are currently working on building a new incentive model that maximizes engagement and academic productivity for our physicians, which in turn, will allow their careers to flourish and the involvement with enterprise leadership to increase.”

They had also planned to expand their teams and services before the pandemic, so in 2021, they’re hiring “an unprecedented number of hospitalists,” Ms. Dede said.

Mr. Kharbanda said that COVID has shown how much impact hospitalists can have on a hospital’s success, which has further highlighted their value. “Most of our programs are holding steady and we have some growth expected at some of our entities, so for those sites, we are hiring,” he said. Budget-wise, he expected to feel the pandemic’s impact for the first half of 2021, but for the second half, he hopes to return to normal.

Other than some low volumes in the spring, Salem Health has mostly maintained its typical capacities and funds. “Obviously, we don’t have control over external forces that impact health care, but we really try to home in on how we utilize our resources,” said Ms. Smith. “We’re a financially secure organization and I think our lean work really drives that.” The Salem Hospital is currently expanding a building tower to add another 150 beds, giving them more than 600 beds. “That will make us the largest hospital in Oregon,” Ms. Smith said.
 

Positive takeaways from the pandemic

Ms. Dede feels that hospital medicine has entered the health care spotlight with regard to hospitalists’ role in caring for patients during the pandemic. “Every challenge is an opportunity for growth and an opportunity to show that you know what you’re made of,” she said. “If there was ever doubt that the hospitalists are the beating heart of the hospital, this doubt is now gone. Hospitalists have, and will continue to, shoulder most of the care for COVID patients.”

The pandemic has also presented an opportunity at University of Kentucky Healthcare that helps accomplish both physician and hospital goals. “Hospital medicine is currently being asked to staff units and to participate in leadership committees, so this has been a great opportunity for growth for us,” Ms. Dede said.

The flexibility her team has shown has been a positive outcome for Ms. Panek. “You never really know what you’re going to be capable of doing until you have to do it,” she said. “I’m really proud of my group of administrative staff for how well that they’ve handled this considering it was supposed to be temporary. It’s really shown just how amazing the members of our team are and I think sometimes we take that for granted. COVID has made it so you don’t take things for granted anymore.”

Mr. Kharbanda sees how the pandemic has brought his hospitalist team together. Now, “it’s more like a family,” he said. “I think having the conversations around well-being and family safety were the real value as we learn to survive the pandemic. That was beautiful to see.”

The resiliency work her organization has done has helped Ms. Smith find plenty of positives in the face of the pandemic. “We are really resilient in health care and we can adapt quickly, but also safely,” she said.

Ms. Smith said the pandemic has also brought about changes for the better that will likely be permanent, like having time-saving virtual meetings and working from home. “We’ve put a lot of resources into physical structures and that takes away value from patients,” said Ms. Smith. “If we’re able to shift people in different roles to work from home, that just creates more future value for our community.”

Ms. Dede also sees the potential benefits that stem from people’s newfound comfort with video conferencing. “You can basically have grand rounds presenters from anywhere in the world,” she said. “You don’t have to fly them in, you don’t have to host them and have a whole program for a couple of days. They can talk to your people for an hour from the comfort of their home. I feel that we should take advantage of this too.”

Ms. Dede believes that expanding telehealth options and figuring out how hospitals can maximize that use is a priority right now. “Telehealth has been on the minds of so many hospital medicine practices, but there were still so many questions without answers about how to implement it,” she said. “During the pandemic, we were forced to find those solutions, but a lot of the barriers we are faced with have not been eliminated. I would recommend that groups keep their eyes open for new technological solutions that may empower your expansion into telehealth.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has given hospitalists a time to shine. Perhaps few people see – and value – this more than the hospital medicine administrators who work to support them behind the scenes.

“I’m very proud to have been given this opportunity to serve alongside these wonderful hospitalists,” said Elda Dede, FHM, hospital medicine division administrator at the University of Kentucky Healthcare in Lexington, Ky.

As with everything else in U.S. health care, the pandemic has affected hospital medicine administrators planning for 2021 and subsequent years in a big way. Despite all the challenges, some organizations are maintaining equilibrium, while others are even expanding. And intertwined through it all is a bright outlook and a distinct sense of team support.
 

Pandemic impacts on 2021 planning

Though the Texas Health Physicians Group (THPG) in Fort Worth is part of Texas Health Resources (THR), Ajay Kharbanda, MBA, SFHM, vice president of practice operations at THPG, said that each hospital within the THR system decides who that hospital will contract with for hospitalist services. Because the process is competitive and there’s no guarantee that THPG will get the contract each time, THPG has a large focus on the value they can bring to the hospitals they serve and the patients they care for.

“Having our physicians engaged with their hospital entity leaders was extremely important this year with planning around COVID because multiple hospitals had to create new COVID units,” said Mr. Kharbanda.

With the pressure of not enough volume early in the pandemic, other hospitalist groups were forced to cut back on staffing. “Within our health system, we made the cultural decision not to cancel any shifts or cut back on staffing because we didn’t want our hospitalists to be impacted negatively by things that were out of their control,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

This commitment to their hospitalists paid off when there was a surge of patients during the last quarter of 2020. “We were struggling to ensure there were adequate physicians available to take care of the patients in the hospital, but because we did the right thing by our physicians in the beginning, people did whatever it took to make sure there was enough staffing available for that increased patient volume,” Mr. Kharbanda said.

The first priority for University of Kentucky Healthcare is patient care, said Ms. Dede. Before the pandemic, the health system already had a two-layer jeopardy system in place to deal with scheduling needs in case a staff member couldn’t come in. “For the pandemic, we created six teams with an escalation and de-escalation pattern so that we could be ready to face whatever changes came in,” Ms. Dede said. Thankfully, the community wasn’t hit very hard by COVID-19, so the six new teams ended up being unnecessary, “but we were fully prepared, and everybody was ready to go.”

Making staffing plans amidst all the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic was a big challenge in planning for 2021, said Tiffani Panek, CLHM, SFHM, hospital medicine division administrator at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, in Baltimore. “We don’t know what next week is going to look like, let alone what two or three months from now is going to look like, so we’ve really had to learn to be flexible,” she said. No longer is there just a Plan A that can be adjusted as needed; now there has to be a Plan B, C, and D as well.

Because the hospital medicine division’s budget is tied to the hospital, Ms. Panek said there hasn’t been a negative impact. “The hospital supports the program and continues to support the program, regardless of COVID,” she said. The health system as a whole did have to reduce benefits and freeze raises temporarily to ensure employees could keep their jobs. However, she said they have been fortunate in that their staff has been able to – and will continue to – stay in place.

As with others, volume fluctuation was an enormous hurdle in 2021 planning, said Larissa Smith, adult hospitalist and palliative care manager at The Salem Health Medical Group, Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics, in Salem, Ore. “It’s really highlighted the continued need for us to be agile in how we structure and operationalize our staffing,” Ms. Smith said. “Adapting to volume fluctuations has been our main focus.”

To prepare for both high and low patient volumes in 2021 and be able to adjust accordingly, The Salem Health Medical Group finalized in December 2020 what they call “team efficiency plans.” These plans consist of four primary areas: surge capacity, low census planning, right providers and right patient collaboration, and right team size.

Ms. Smith is working on the “right providers and right patient collaboration” component with the trauma and acute care, vascular, and general surgery teams to figure out the best ways to utilize hospitalists and specialists. “It’s been really great collaboration,” she said.
 

Administrative priorities during COVID-19

The pandemic hasn’t changed Ms. Panek’s administrative priorities, which include making sure her staff has whatever they need to do their jobs and that her providers have administrative support. “The work that’s had to be done to fulfill those priorities has changed in light of COVID though,” she said.

For example, she and her staff are all still off site, which she said has been challenging, especially given the lack of preparation they had. “In order to support my staff and to make sure they aren’t getting overwhelmed by being at home, that means my job looks a little bit different, but it doesn’t change my priorities,” said Ms. Panek.

By mid-summer, Ms. Dede said her main priority has been onboarding new team members, which she said is difficult with so many meetings being held virtually. “I’m not walking around the hallways with these people and having opportunities to get feedback about how their onboarding is going, so engaging so many new team members organically into the culture, the vision, the goals of our practice, is a challenge,” she said.

Taking advantage of opportunities for hospital medicine is another administrative priority for Ms. Dede. “For us to be able to take a seat at every possible table where decisions are being made, participate in shaping the strategic vision of the entire institution and be an active player in bringing that vision to life,” she said. “I feel like this is a crucial moment for hospitalists.”

Lean work, which includes the new team efficiency plans, is an administrative priority for Ms. Smith, as it is for the entire organization. “I would say that my biggest priority is just supporting our team,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve been on a resiliency journey for a couple years.”

Their resiliency work involves periodic team training courtesy of Bryan Sexton, PhD, director of the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality. The goal of resiliency is to strengthen positive emotion, which enables a quicker recovery when difficulties occur. “I can’t imagine where we would be, this far into the pandemic, without that work,” said Ms. Smith. “I think it has really set us up to weather the storm, literally and figuratively.”

Ensuring the well-being of his provider group’s physicians is a high administrative priority for Mr. Kharbanda. Considering that the work they’ve always done is difficult, and the pandemic has been going on for such a long time, hospitalists are stretched thin. “We are bringing some additional resources to our providers that relate to taking care of themselves and helping them cope with the additional shifts,” Mr. Kharbanda said.
 

Going forward

The hospital medicine team at University of Kentucky Healthcare was already in the process of planning and adopting a new funds flow model, which increases the budget for HM, when the pandemic hit. “This is actually very good timing for us,” noted Ms. Dede. “We are currently working on building a new incentive model that maximizes engagement and academic productivity for our physicians, which in turn, will allow their careers to flourish and the involvement with enterprise leadership to increase.”

They had also planned to expand their teams and services before the pandemic, so in 2021, they’re hiring “an unprecedented number of hospitalists,” Ms. Dede said.

Mr. Kharbanda said that COVID has shown how much impact hospitalists can have on a hospital’s success, which has further highlighted their value. “Most of our programs are holding steady and we have some growth expected at some of our entities, so for those sites, we are hiring,” he said. Budget-wise, he expected to feel the pandemic’s impact for the first half of 2021, but for the second half, he hopes to return to normal.

Other than some low volumes in the spring, Salem Health has mostly maintained its typical capacities and funds. “Obviously, we don’t have control over external forces that impact health care, but we really try to home in on how we utilize our resources,” said Ms. Smith. “We’re a financially secure organization and I think our lean work really drives that.” The Salem Hospital is currently expanding a building tower to add another 150 beds, giving them more than 600 beds. “That will make us the largest hospital in Oregon,” Ms. Smith said.
 

Positive takeaways from the pandemic

Ms. Dede feels that hospital medicine has entered the health care spotlight with regard to hospitalists’ role in caring for patients during the pandemic. “Every challenge is an opportunity for growth and an opportunity to show that you know what you’re made of,” she said. “If there was ever doubt that the hospitalists are the beating heart of the hospital, this doubt is now gone. Hospitalists have, and will continue to, shoulder most of the care for COVID patients.”

The pandemic has also presented an opportunity at University of Kentucky Healthcare that helps accomplish both physician and hospital goals. “Hospital medicine is currently being asked to staff units and to participate in leadership committees, so this has been a great opportunity for growth for us,” Ms. Dede said.

The flexibility her team has shown has been a positive outcome for Ms. Panek. “You never really know what you’re going to be capable of doing until you have to do it,” she said. “I’m really proud of my group of administrative staff for how well that they’ve handled this considering it was supposed to be temporary. It’s really shown just how amazing the members of our team are and I think sometimes we take that for granted. COVID has made it so you don’t take things for granted anymore.”

Mr. Kharbanda sees how the pandemic has brought his hospitalist team together. Now, “it’s more like a family,” he said. “I think having the conversations around well-being and family safety were the real value as we learn to survive the pandemic. That was beautiful to see.”

The resiliency work her organization has done has helped Ms. Smith find plenty of positives in the face of the pandemic. “We are really resilient in health care and we can adapt quickly, but also safely,” she said.

Ms. Smith said the pandemic has also brought about changes for the better that will likely be permanent, like having time-saving virtual meetings and working from home. “We’ve put a lot of resources into physical structures and that takes away value from patients,” said Ms. Smith. “If we’re able to shift people in different roles to work from home, that just creates more future value for our community.”

Ms. Dede also sees the potential benefits that stem from people’s newfound comfort with video conferencing. “You can basically have grand rounds presenters from anywhere in the world,” she said. “You don’t have to fly them in, you don’t have to host them and have a whole program for a couple of days. They can talk to your people for an hour from the comfort of their home. I feel that we should take advantage of this too.”

Ms. Dede believes that expanding telehealth options and figuring out how hospitals can maximize that use is a priority right now. “Telehealth has been on the minds of so many hospital medicine practices, but there were still so many questions without answers about how to implement it,” she said. “During the pandemic, we were forced to find those solutions, but a lot of the barriers we are faced with have not been eliminated. I would recommend that groups keep their eyes open for new technological solutions that may empower your expansion into telehealth.”

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’ve been vaccinated for 2 months. I’ll be there!”

“Such a great call.”

“Discrimination and segregation always worked so well in the past, why not repeat it!”

These are just a few examples of the types of online reactions that restaurants have received after taking the bold move to require vaccines, something that may happen more often now with Yelp’s two new features.

Businesses now have the option to add “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features to their Yelp pages for free.

Businesses’ concerns about the Delta variant played a major role in the decision, according to a statement by Noorie Malik, vice president of user operations at Yelp.

Ms. Malik also explained how Yelp plans to handle any chaos that arises, especially given the controversial nature of vaccinations, COVID-19 safety measures, and the pandemic in general.

City Winery, a live music venue, restaurant, and urban winery with locations across the country, requires that customers either show proof of COVID-19 vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of entry.

Customers with neither have the option to take a $15 rapid test or dine on the outdoor patio.

City Winery was one of the first Atlanta restaurants to have COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Laura A. Albers, vice president of marketing for City Winery, supports Yelp’s new move.

“I think it’s wonderful,” she said. “I think one of the things we can do is make people aware of our policies in advance so that they’re not shocked or surprised when they come to the door.”

Ms. Albers also thinks Yelp’s new features could lead to more businesses following suit and enforcing stronger COVID-19 safety policies, like vaccine requirements or proof of a negative COVID-19 test.

“I think more restaurants and venues will join forces and do the same, the more they see other places doing it,” she said.

Ms. Albers said City Winery has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from customers. There has been a little pushback, but the new surge in cases may cause wary customers to see the new safety measures in a different light.

“Since another week has gone by and people have seen the uptick in the Delta variant, this policy is not as foreign as it was,” Ms. Albers says. “I think people are becoming more accustomed to it.”
 

Review bombing

Harmful Yelp reviews have been a big problem over the course of the pandemic, according to Ms. Malik.

Yelp reviews must be based on a user’s first-hand experience with the business. But during the pandemic, many users have used the reviews section to air their opinions on a business’s COVID-19 policies, she said.

Yelp places “Unusual Activity Alerts” on pages that get lots of traffic or public attention based on a business’s COVID-19 safety practices.

Since January, over 100 of these alerts have resulted in almost 4,500 reviews being removed, according to Ms. Malik.

If users decide to wreak havoc on a business’s Yelp page for its COVID-19 safety measures, also known as “review bombing,” Yelp places an Unusual Activity Alert and examines the page, removing any harmful content.

Users might lose the ability to post on the business’s page temporarily.

Yelp launched special COVID-19 guidelines in March 2021 to protect businesses from “reputational harm related to the pandemic,” according to Ms. Malik.

This includes review bombing because of a business’s vaccine requirements.

Yelp has removed 8,000 reviews for violating COVID content guidelines in 2021 alone, Ms. Malik said.

The company took similar steps when launching the “Black-owned” feature in June, as well as with the “Asian-owned” and “Latinx-owned” features. Yelp prevented or removed almost 400 racist or harmful reviews, according to Ms. Malik.

You can report reviews on the app or the Yelp website if you’re logged in.

Business leaders can add the “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features under the Business Information section of their accounts. “Masks required” and “Staff wears masks” features are also available.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

“I’ve been vaccinated for 2 months. I’ll be there!”

“Such a great call.”

“Discrimination and segregation always worked so well in the past, why not repeat it!”

These are just a few examples of the types of online reactions that restaurants have received after taking the bold move to require vaccines, something that may happen more often now with Yelp’s two new features.

Businesses now have the option to add “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features to their Yelp pages for free.

Businesses’ concerns about the Delta variant played a major role in the decision, according to a statement by Noorie Malik, vice president of user operations at Yelp.

Ms. Malik also explained how Yelp plans to handle any chaos that arises, especially given the controversial nature of vaccinations, COVID-19 safety measures, and the pandemic in general.

City Winery, a live music venue, restaurant, and urban winery with locations across the country, requires that customers either show proof of COVID-19 vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of entry.

Customers with neither have the option to take a $15 rapid test or dine on the outdoor patio.

City Winery was one of the first Atlanta restaurants to have COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Laura A. Albers, vice president of marketing for City Winery, supports Yelp’s new move.

“I think it’s wonderful,” she said. “I think one of the things we can do is make people aware of our policies in advance so that they’re not shocked or surprised when they come to the door.”

Ms. Albers also thinks Yelp’s new features could lead to more businesses following suit and enforcing stronger COVID-19 safety policies, like vaccine requirements or proof of a negative COVID-19 test.

“I think more restaurants and venues will join forces and do the same, the more they see other places doing it,” she said.

Ms. Albers said City Winery has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from customers. There has been a little pushback, but the new surge in cases may cause wary customers to see the new safety measures in a different light.

“Since another week has gone by and people have seen the uptick in the Delta variant, this policy is not as foreign as it was,” Ms. Albers says. “I think people are becoming more accustomed to it.”
 

Review bombing

Harmful Yelp reviews have been a big problem over the course of the pandemic, according to Ms. Malik.

Yelp reviews must be based on a user’s first-hand experience with the business. But during the pandemic, many users have used the reviews section to air their opinions on a business’s COVID-19 policies, she said.

Yelp places “Unusual Activity Alerts” on pages that get lots of traffic or public attention based on a business’s COVID-19 safety practices.

Since January, over 100 of these alerts have resulted in almost 4,500 reviews being removed, according to Ms. Malik.

If users decide to wreak havoc on a business’s Yelp page for its COVID-19 safety measures, also known as “review bombing,” Yelp places an Unusual Activity Alert and examines the page, removing any harmful content.

Users might lose the ability to post on the business’s page temporarily.

Yelp launched special COVID-19 guidelines in March 2021 to protect businesses from “reputational harm related to the pandemic,” according to Ms. Malik.

This includes review bombing because of a business’s vaccine requirements.

Yelp has removed 8,000 reviews for violating COVID content guidelines in 2021 alone, Ms. Malik said.

The company took similar steps when launching the “Black-owned” feature in June, as well as with the “Asian-owned” and “Latinx-owned” features. Yelp prevented or removed almost 400 racist or harmful reviews, according to Ms. Malik.

You can report reviews on the app or the Yelp website if you’re logged in.

Business leaders can add the “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features under the Business Information section of their accounts. “Masks required” and “Staff wears masks” features are also available.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

“I’ve been vaccinated for 2 months. I’ll be there!”

“Such a great call.”

“Discrimination and segregation always worked so well in the past, why not repeat it!”

These are just a few examples of the types of online reactions that restaurants have received after taking the bold move to require vaccines, something that may happen more often now with Yelp’s two new features.

Businesses now have the option to add “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features to their Yelp pages for free.

Businesses’ concerns about the Delta variant played a major role in the decision, according to a statement by Noorie Malik, vice president of user operations at Yelp.

Ms. Malik also explained how Yelp plans to handle any chaos that arises, especially given the controversial nature of vaccinations, COVID-19 safety measures, and the pandemic in general.

City Winery, a live music venue, restaurant, and urban winery with locations across the country, requires that customers either show proof of COVID-19 vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of entry.

Customers with neither have the option to take a $15 rapid test or dine on the outdoor patio.

City Winery was one of the first Atlanta restaurants to have COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Laura A. Albers, vice president of marketing for City Winery, supports Yelp’s new move.

“I think it’s wonderful,” she said. “I think one of the things we can do is make people aware of our policies in advance so that they’re not shocked or surprised when they come to the door.”

Ms. Albers also thinks Yelp’s new features could lead to more businesses following suit and enforcing stronger COVID-19 safety policies, like vaccine requirements or proof of a negative COVID-19 test.

“I think more restaurants and venues will join forces and do the same, the more they see other places doing it,” she said.

Ms. Albers said City Winery has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from customers. There has been a little pushback, but the new surge in cases may cause wary customers to see the new safety measures in a different light.

“Since another week has gone by and people have seen the uptick in the Delta variant, this policy is not as foreign as it was,” Ms. Albers says. “I think people are becoming more accustomed to it.”
 

Review bombing

Harmful Yelp reviews have been a big problem over the course of the pandemic, according to Ms. Malik.

Yelp reviews must be based on a user’s first-hand experience with the business. But during the pandemic, many users have used the reviews section to air their opinions on a business’s COVID-19 policies, she said.

Yelp places “Unusual Activity Alerts” on pages that get lots of traffic or public attention based on a business’s COVID-19 safety practices.

Since January, over 100 of these alerts have resulted in almost 4,500 reviews being removed, according to Ms. Malik.

If users decide to wreak havoc on a business’s Yelp page for its COVID-19 safety measures, also known as “review bombing,” Yelp places an Unusual Activity Alert and examines the page, removing any harmful content.

Users might lose the ability to post on the business’s page temporarily.

Yelp launched special COVID-19 guidelines in March 2021 to protect businesses from “reputational harm related to the pandemic,” according to Ms. Malik.

This includes review bombing because of a business’s vaccine requirements.

Yelp has removed 8,000 reviews for violating COVID content guidelines in 2021 alone, Ms. Malik said.

The company took similar steps when launching the “Black-owned” feature in June, as well as with the “Asian-owned” and “Latinx-owned” features. Yelp prevented or removed almost 400 racist or harmful reviews, according to Ms. Malik.

You can report reviews on the app or the Yelp website if you’re logged in.

Business leaders can add the “Proof of vaccination required” and “All staff fully vaccinated” features under the Business Information section of their accounts. “Masks required” and “Staff wears masks” features are also available.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.