User login
Cardiac inflammation can be present after mild COVID infection
Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.
“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“While our data suggest that this inflammation improves over time, and the outcomes seem positive, we don’t know if there will be any long-term consequences,” he added.
Noting that even a short period of inflammation in the heart may be associated with symptoms or arrhythmias in the longer term, Dr. Thavendiranathan said: “I would recommend that it is best to avoid getting the infection if there is any chance of heart inflammation.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on Jan. 12.
The authors explain that among patients hospitalized with COVID, early studies suggested that approximately one in four experience cardiovascular injury, defined as an elevation in troponin levels, which was associated with a 5- to 10-fold increase in the risk for death. But there is limited information on cardiac injury in patients who do not require hospitalization.
Although a broad range of abnormal myocardial tissue has been reported in several cardiac MRI studies of patients recovered from COVID infection, there is little understanding of persistent changes in myocardial metabolism in recovered patients, which is a potential concern, given that COVID-19 is associated with systemic inflammation during the acute illness, they say.
For the current study, the researchers examined myocardial inflammation measured using two different methods – cardiac MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) – in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 infection and looked at how this related to changes in inflammatory blood markers.
Lead author Kate Hanneman, MD, also from the University of Toronto, explained that FDG-PET imaging is more sensitive than MRI in detecting active inflammation. “Inflammatory cells have a higher uptake of glucose, and FDG-PET imaging is used to look for metabolically active inflammatory tissue that takes up glucose. It gives complementary information to MRI. Cardiac MRI shows structural or functional changes, such as scarring or edema, whereas FDG-PET imaging directly measures metabolic activity related to inflammatory cells.”
The study involved 47 individuals, 51% female, with a mean age of 43 years, who had recently recovered from COVID-19 infection. Of these, the majority had had relatively mild COVID disease, with 85% not requiring hospitalization.
Cardiac imaging was performed a mean of 67 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19. At the time of imaging, 19 participants (40%) reported at least one cardiac symptom, including palpitations, chest pain, and shortness of breath.
Results showed that eight patients (17%) had focal FDG uptake on PET consistent with myocardial inflammation. Compared with those without FDG uptake, patients with focal FDG uptake had higher regional T2, T1, and extracellular volume (colocalizing with focal FDG uptake), higher prevalence of late gadolinium enhancement indicating fibrosis, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, worse global longitudinal and circumferential strain, and higher systemic inflammatory blood markers, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL- 8, an high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Of the 47 patients in the study, 13 had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who were PET-positive among those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who had not.
There was also no difference in inflammation in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and those who had managed their infection at home.
Among patients with focal FDG uptake, PET, MRI, and inflammatory blood markers improved at follow-up imaging performed a mean of 52 days after the first imaging. The authors say this suggests that these abnormalities were not related to pre-existing cardiovascular disease.
Of the eight patients with positive FDG-PET results, two did not show any MRI abnormalities. These two patients also had elevated inflammatory biomarkers. “PET is a more sensitive method of measuring cardiac inflammation, and our results show that these changes may not always translate into functional changes seen on MRI,” Dr. Thavendiranathan noted.
The only cardiac risk factor that was more common in participants with FDG uptake was hypertension. Although cardiac symptoms were nearly twice as common in participants with focal FDG uptake, this difference was not statistically significant.
“Given the growing number of survivors with similar symptoms, these interesting findings warrant further investigation,” the authors say.
Noting that FDG uptake correlated with elevations in systemic inflammatory biomarkers, the researchers suggest that “a more intense systemic inflammatory process may be contributing to cardiac inflammation and the consequential alteration to regional and global myocardial function in PET-positive participants.”
On repeat imaging 2 months later, all eight patients who showed FDG uptake showed improvement or resolution of inflammation without any treatment, although two patients still had some signs of inflammation. Blood biomarkers also improved on follow-up.
“This is encouraging information, but we need longer-term data to see if there are any long-term repercussions of this inflammation,” Dr. Hanneman said.
“Overall, the study findings suggest an imaging phenotype that is expected to have good prognosis. However, longer-term follow-up studies are required to understand the need for ongoing cardiac surveillance, relationship to cardiac symptoms, guidance for safe return to exercise and sports participation, and long-term cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers state.
This study was funded by grants from the Joint Department of Medical Imaging Academic Incentive Fund, Peter Munk Cardiac Center Innovation Committee, and Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research. Dr. Hanneman reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Amicus, and Medscape outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.
“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“While our data suggest that this inflammation improves over time, and the outcomes seem positive, we don’t know if there will be any long-term consequences,” he added.
Noting that even a short period of inflammation in the heart may be associated with symptoms or arrhythmias in the longer term, Dr. Thavendiranathan said: “I would recommend that it is best to avoid getting the infection if there is any chance of heart inflammation.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on Jan. 12.
The authors explain that among patients hospitalized with COVID, early studies suggested that approximately one in four experience cardiovascular injury, defined as an elevation in troponin levels, which was associated with a 5- to 10-fold increase in the risk for death. But there is limited information on cardiac injury in patients who do not require hospitalization.
Although a broad range of abnormal myocardial tissue has been reported in several cardiac MRI studies of patients recovered from COVID infection, there is little understanding of persistent changes in myocardial metabolism in recovered patients, which is a potential concern, given that COVID-19 is associated with systemic inflammation during the acute illness, they say.
For the current study, the researchers examined myocardial inflammation measured using two different methods – cardiac MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) – in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 infection and looked at how this related to changes in inflammatory blood markers.
Lead author Kate Hanneman, MD, also from the University of Toronto, explained that FDG-PET imaging is more sensitive than MRI in detecting active inflammation. “Inflammatory cells have a higher uptake of glucose, and FDG-PET imaging is used to look for metabolically active inflammatory tissue that takes up glucose. It gives complementary information to MRI. Cardiac MRI shows structural or functional changes, such as scarring or edema, whereas FDG-PET imaging directly measures metabolic activity related to inflammatory cells.”
The study involved 47 individuals, 51% female, with a mean age of 43 years, who had recently recovered from COVID-19 infection. Of these, the majority had had relatively mild COVID disease, with 85% not requiring hospitalization.
Cardiac imaging was performed a mean of 67 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19. At the time of imaging, 19 participants (40%) reported at least one cardiac symptom, including palpitations, chest pain, and shortness of breath.
Results showed that eight patients (17%) had focal FDG uptake on PET consistent with myocardial inflammation. Compared with those without FDG uptake, patients with focal FDG uptake had higher regional T2, T1, and extracellular volume (colocalizing with focal FDG uptake), higher prevalence of late gadolinium enhancement indicating fibrosis, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, worse global longitudinal and circumferential strain, and higher systemic inflammatory blood markers, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL- 8, an high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Of the 47 patients in the study, 13 had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who were PET-positive among those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who had not.
There was also no difference in inflammation in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and those who had managed their infection at home.
Among patients with focal FDG uptake, PET, MRI, and inflammatory blood markers improved at follow-up imaging performed a mean of 52 days after the first imaging. The authors say this suggests that these abnormalities were not related to pre-existing cardiovascular disease.
Of the eight patients with positive FDG-PET results, two did not show any MRI abnormalities. These two patients also had elevated inflammatory biomarkers. “PET is a more sensitive method of measuring cardiac inflammation, and our results show that these changes may not always translate into functional changes seen on MRI,” Dr. Thavendiranathan noted.
The only cardiac risk factor that was more common in participants with FDG uptake was hypertension. Although cardiac symptoms were nearly twice as common in participants with focal FDG uptake, this difference was not statistically significant.
“Given the growing number of survivors with similar symptoms, these interesting findings warrant further investigation,” the authors say.
Noting that FDG uptake correlated with elevations in systemic inflammatory biomarkers, the researchers suggest that “a more intense systemic inflammatory process may be contributing to cardiac inflammation and the consequential alteration to regional and global myocardial function in PET-positive participants.”
On repeat imaging 2 months later, all eight patients who showed FDG uptake showed improvement or resolution of inflammation without any treatment, although two patients still had some signs of inflammation. Blood biomarkers also improved on follow-up.
“This is encouraging information, but we need longer-term data to see if there are any long-term repercussions of this inflammation,” Dr. Hanneman said.
“Overall, the study findings suggest an imaging phenotype that is expected to have good prognosis. However, longer-term follow-up studies are required to understand the need for ongoing cardiac surveillance, relationship to cardiac symptoms, guidance for safe return to exercise and sports participation, and long-term cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers state.
This study was funded by grants from the Joint Department of Medical Imaging Academic Incentive Fund, Peter Munk Cardiac Center Innovation Committee, and Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research. Dr. Hanneman reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Amicus, and Medscape outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.
“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“While our data suggest that this inflammation improves over time, and the outcomes seem positive, we don’t know if there will be any long-term consequences,” he added.
Noting that even a short period of inflammation in the heart may be associated with symptoms or arrhythmias in the longer term, Dr. Thavendiranathan said: “I would recommend that it is best to avoid getting the infection if there is any chance of heart inflammation.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on Jan. 12.
The authors explain that among patients hospitalized with COVID, early studies suggested that approximately one in four experience cardiovascular injury, defined as an elevation in troponin levels, which was associated with a 5- to 10-fold increase in the risk for death. But there is limited information on cardiac injury in patients who do not require hospitalization.
Although a broad range of abnormal myocardial tissue has been reported in several cardiac MRI studies of patients recovered from COVID infection, there is little understanding of persistent changes in myocardial metabolism in recovered patients, which is a potential concern, given that COVID-19 is associated with systemic inflammation during the acute illness, they say.
For the current study, the researchers examined myocardial inflammation measured using two different methods – cardiac MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) – in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 infection and looked at how this related to changes in inflammatory blood markers.
Lead author Kate Hanneman, MD, also from the University of Toronto, explained that FDG-PET imaging is more sensitive than MRI in detecting active inflammation. “Inflammatory cells have a higher uptake of glucose, and FDG-PET imaging is used to look for metabolically active inflammatory tissue that takes up glucose. It gives complementary information to MRI. Cardiac MRI shows structural or functional changes, such as scarring or edema, whereas FDG-PET imaging directly measures metabolic activity related to inflammatory cells.”
The study involved 47 individuals, 51% female, with a mean age of 43 years, who had recently recovered from COVID-19 infection. Of these, the majority had had relatively mild COVID disease, with 85% not requiring hospitalization.
Cardiac imaging was performed a mean of 67 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19. At the time of imaging, 19 participants (40%) reported at least one cardiac symptom, including palpitations, chest pain, and shortness of breath.
Results showed that eight patients (17%) had focal FDG uptake on PET consistent with myocardial inflammation. Compared with those without FDG uptake, patients with focal FDG uptake had higher regional T2, T1, and extracellular volume (colocalizing with focal FDG uptake), higher prevalence of late gadolinium enhancement indicating fibrosis, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, worse global longitudinal and circumferential strain, and higher systemic inflammatory blood markers, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL- 8, an high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Of the 47 patients in the study, 13 had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who were PET-positive among those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who had not.
There was also no difference in inflammation in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and those who had managed their infection at home.
Among patients with focal FDG uptake, PET, MRI, and inflammatory blood markers improved at follow-up imaging performed a mean of 52 days after the first imaging. The authors say this suggests that these abnormalities were not related to pre-existing cardiovascular disease.
Of the eight patients with positive FDG-PET results, two did not show any MRI abnormalities. These two patients also had elevated inflammatory biomarkers. “PET is a more sensitive method of measuring cardiac inflammation, and our results show that these changes may not always translate into functional changes seen on MRI,” Dr. Thavendiranathan noted.
The only cardiac risk factor that was more common in participants with FDG uptake was hypertension. Although cardiac symptoms were nearly twice as common in participants with focal FDG uptake, this difference was not statistically significant.
“Given the growing number of survivors with similar symptoms, these interesting findings warrant further investigation,” the authors say.
Noting that FDG uptake correlated with elevations in systemic inflammatory biomarkers, the researchers suggest that “a more intense systemic inflammatory process may be contributing to cardiac inflammation and the consequential alteration to regional and global myocardial function in PET-positive participants.”
On repeat imaging 2 months later, all eight patients who showed FDG uptake showed improvement or resolution of inflammation without any treatment, although two patients still had some signs of inflammation. Blood biomarkers also improved on follow-up.
“This is encouraging information, but we need longer-term data to see if there are any long-term repercussions of this inflammation,” Dr. Hanneman said.
“Overall, the study findings suggest an imaging phenotype that is expected to have good prognosis. However, longer-term follow-up studies are required to understand the need for ongoing cardiac surveillance, relationship to cardiac symptoms, guidance for safe return to exercise and sports participation, and long-term cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers state.
This study was funded by grants from the Joint Department of Medical Imaging Academic Incentive Fund, Peter Munk Cardiac Center Innovation Committee, and Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research. Dr. Hanneman reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Amicus, and Medscape outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Quebec plans to fine unvaccinated adults
The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.
“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.
Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.
“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”
The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.
Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.
Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.
About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.
Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.
In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.
Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.
In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.
“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.
Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.
“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”
The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.
Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.
Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.
About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.
Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.
In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.
Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.
In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The amount hasn’t been decided yet, but it will be “significant” and more than $100. More details will be released at a later date, The Associated Press reported.
“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Premier Francois Legault said during a news conference.
Not getting vaccinated burdens the health care system, and not all residents should pay for it, he said. About 10% of adults in Quebec are unvaccinated, but they represent about 50% of intensive care patients.
“I think it’s reasonable a majority of the population is asking that there be consequences,” he said. “It’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”
The fine will apply to those who don’t qualify for a medical exemption, Mr. Legault said.
Provinces across Canada have reported a surge in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, with Quebec being one of the hardest-hit, according to Reuters. The province is regularly recording the highest daily case count across the country.
Quebec also has announced a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, the AP reported. Starting Jan. 18, liquor and cannabis stores in the province will require proof of vaccination, and shopping malls and hair salons could soon require them as well.
About a quarter of all Canadians live in Quebec, according to CNN. The province was one of the first in Canada to require proof of vaccination for residents to eat in restaurants, go to the gym, or attend sporting events.
Some European countries have announced fees for unvaccinated residents, the AP reported, but Quebec is the first in Canada to announce a financial penalty for those who don’t get a shot.
In Greece, people older than 60 have until Jan. 16 to receive the first dose, or they will be fined 100 euros for every month they remain unvaccinated, the AP reported.
Austria will impose fines up to 3,600 euros for those who don’t follow the vaccine mandate for ages 14 and older, which is slated to start in February.
In Italy, residents who are 50 and older are required to be vaccinated. In mid-February, those who are unvaccinated could be fined up to 1,600 euros if they enter their workplaces, the AP reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CDC to update mask recommendations as Omicron spreads
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
The limits of education
For more than a decade, studies on the dubious value of education in the face of vaccine refusal and hesitancy have been accumulating. But, too often, the research has been ignored by folks who believe that they can teach the “misinformed” into dropping their resistance. Among some circles education ranks right up there with apple pie and motherhood as one of the pillars of Americana. Those wedded to the education mantra may acknowledge that teaching and preaching hasn’t worked well in the past. But, they may claim it’s because we haven’t done enough of it or hit the right buttons. The notion that if we can just share the facts with the uninformed everything will be fine is a myth that obviously is going to die slowly.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times two physicians at Harvard Medical School reported on their study of about three-quarters of a million children who were eligible to receive HPV vaccines (2021 Dec 21. “Facts alone aren’t going to win over the unvaccinated. This might,” Anupam B. Jena and Christopher M. Worsham). The researchers found that children whose mothers had been diagnosed with cervical cancer were no more likely to be immunized than those children whose mothers had not had the disease. Who could be better informed about risks and hazards of contracting HPV than women with cervical cancer? If the facts won’t motivate, where does that leave us?
Those of you born before 1960 may remember or at least have heard about a television show called “Truth or Consequences.” It was a silly farce of a game show which has no bearing on our nation’s crisis of widespread vaccine refusal. However, buried in its title is the answer. If the truth isn’t convincing the resistors, then the obvious choice is consequences.
I hope that you have discovered that same strategy when counseling parents of misbehaving children. Talk is cheap and often ineffective. Explaining the error of his ways to a child who probably already knows what he is doing wrong is a waste of everyone’s time and unpleasant for those within earshot. At some point, sooner better than later, it’s time to say there is going to be a consequence for this misbehavior – going home from the playground, spending a few minutes in time-out, removing a privilege, etc. If consequences are chosen well and instituted with a minimum of idle threats, they work.
And, we are beginning to see it work in the face of pandemic shot refusal. Here in Maine the governor mandated that all health care workers be vaccinated. There was plenty of gnashing of teeth and threats of mass job walk offs. And, there were a few hospital workers who quit, but in the end it worked.
The trick is choosing consequences that have some teeth and make sense. Clearly, some folks who have read about the consequences of not getting vaccinated and may have even lost family members to the disease don’t see those losses as significant consequences for whatever reason. The threat of losing a job is likely to get their attention.
Threats must be carried out even though they may be disruptive in the short term. The good thing about well-crafted mandates is that they can be a win-win for everyone. The vaccine resisters don’t need to admit they were wrong. “Those shots are B.S., but the governor made me do it.” The problem is finding leaders who understand that education has its limits and who have the courage to create and administer the consequences.
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].
For more than a decade, studies on the dubious value of education in the face of vaccine refusal and hesitancy have been accumulating. But, too often, the research has been ignored by folks who believe that they can teach the “misinformed” into dropping their resistance. Among some circles education ranks right up there with apple pie and motherhood as one of the pillars of Americana. Those wedded to the education mantra may acknowledge that teaching and preaching hasn’t worked well in the past. But, they may claim it’s because we haven’t done enough of it or hit the right buttons. The notion that if we can just share the facts with the uninformed everything will be fine is a myth that obviously is going to die slowly.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times two physicians at Harvard Medical School reported on their study of about three-quarters of a million children who were eligible to receive HPV vaccines (2021 Dec 21. “Facts alone aren’t going to win over the unvaccinated. This might,” Anupam B. Jena and Christopher M. Worsham). The researchers found that children whose mothers had been diagnosed with cervical cancer were no more likely to be immunized than those children whose mothers had not had the disease. Who could be better informed about risks and hazards of contracting HPV than women with cervical cancer? If the facts won’t motivate, where does that leave us?
Those of you born before 1960 may remember or at least have heard about a television show called “Truth or Consequences.” It was a silly farce of a game show which has no bearing on our nation’s crisis of widespread vaccine refusal. However, buried in its title is the answer. If the truth isn’t convincing the resistors, then the obvious choice is consequences.
I hope that you have discovered that same strategy when counseling parents of misbehaving children. Talk is cheap and often ineffective. Explaining the error of his ways to a child who probably already knows what he is doing wrong is a waste of everyone’s time and unpleasant for those within earshot. At some point, sooner better than later, it’s time to say there is going to be a consequence for this misbehavior – going home from the playground, spending a few minutes in time-out, removing a privilege, etc. If consequences are chosen well and instituted with a minimum of idle threats, they work.
And, we are beginning to see it work in the face of pandemic shot refusal. Here in Maine the governor mandated that all health care workers be vaccinated. There was plenty of gnashing of teeth and threats of mass job walk offs. And, there were a few hospital workers who quit, but in the end it worked.
The trick is choosing consequences that have some teeth and make sense. Clearly, some folks who have read about the consequences of not getting vaccinated and may have even lost family members to the disease don’t see those losses as significant consequences for whatever reason. The threat of losing a job is likely to get their attention.
Threats must be carried out even though they may be disruptive in the short term. The good thing about well-crafted mandates is that they can be a win-win for everyone. The vaccine resisters don’t need to admit they were wrong. “Those shots are B.S., but the governor made me do it.” The problem is finding leaders who understand that education has its limits and who have the courage to create and administer the consequences.
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].
For more than a decade, studies on the dubious value of education in the face of vaccine refusal and hesitancy have been accumulating. But, too often, the research has been ignored by folks who believe that they can teach the “misinformed” into dropping their resistance. Among some circles education ranks right up there with apple pie and motherhood as one of the pillars of Americana. Those wedded to the education mantra may acknowledge that teaching and preaching hasn’t worked well in the past. But, they may claim it’s because we haven’t done enough of it or hit the right buttons. The notion that if we can just share the facts with the uninformed everything will be fine is a myth that obviously is going to die slowly.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times two physicians at Harvard Medical School reported on their study of about three-quarters of a million children who were eligible to receive HPV vaccines (2021 Dec 21. “Facts alone aren’t going to win over the unvaccinated. This might,” Anupam B. Jena and Christopher M. Worsham). The researchers found that children whose mothers had been diagnosed with cervical cancer were no more likely to be immunized than those children whose mothers had not had the disease. Who could be better informed about risks and hazards of contracting HPV than women with cervical cancer? If the facts won’t motivate, where does that leave us?
Those of you born before 1960 may remember or at least have heard about a television show called “Truth or Consequences.” It was a silly farce of a game show which has no bearing on our nation’s crisis of widespread vaccine refusal. However, buried in its title is the answer. If the truth isn’t convincing the resistors, then the obvious choice is consequences.
I hope that you have discovered that same strategy when counseling parents of misbehaving children. Talk is cheap and often ineffective. Explaining the error of his ways to a child who probably already knows what he is doing wrong is a waste of everyone’s time and unpleasant for those within earshot. At some point, sooner better than later, it’s time to say there is going to be a consequence for this misbehavior – going home from the playground, spending a few minutes in time-out, removing a privilege, etc. If consequences are chosen well and instituted with a minimum of idle threats, they work.
And, we are beginning to see it work in the face of pandemic shot refusal. Here in Maine the governor mandated that all health care workers be vaccinated. There was plenty of gnashing of teeth and threats of mass job walk offs. And, there were a few hospital workers who quit, but in the end it worked.
The trick is choosing consequences that have some teeth and make sense. Clearly, some folks who have read about the consequences of not getting vaccinated and may have even lost family members to the disease don’t see those losses as significant consequences for whatever reason. The threat of losing a job is likely to get their attention.
Threats must be carried out even though they may be disruptive in the short term. The good thing about well-crafted mandates is that they can be a win-win for everyone. The vaccine resisters don’t need to admit they were wrong. “Those shots are B.S., but the governor made me do it.” The problem is finding leaders who understand that education has its limits and who have the courage to create and administer the consequences.
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].
Common cold could protect against COVID-19, study says
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
Ranking seven COVID-19 antigen tests by ease of use: Report
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians react: Should docs lose their licenses for spreading false COVID information?
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The death of expertise
Unless your social circle is packed with medical professionals, I suspect you are the go-to gal/guy when there is a question about the pandemic. Seated around the fire pit trying to stay warm and socially distanced, inevitably the discussion will turn to COVID. Someone will report something they have read about vaccine side effects or the appropriate timing of isolation or quarantine and then turn to me assuming that I have inside information and ask: “But Will you know all about that. Tell us what have you heard.”
By now, well into our second year of the pandemic, my friends and neighbors should have come to expect my usual answer. “I don’t really know any more about this than you have read on the Internet or seen on television.” I am flattered that folks keep asking for my observations. I guess old habits die slowly. Although I usually introduce myself as an ex-pediatrician, the “doctor” descriptor still seems to command some respect, whether it is deserved or not.
It is not just my waning ability to speak authoritatively about the pandemic that has put expertise at death’s door. Although my formal medical education is more than a half-century old, like most physicians I have tried to stay abreast of what’s happening in health care. Keeping up to date with the new developments in pathophysiology and pharmacology does take some work, but the pandemic has shone a spotlight on how quickly these changes can occur.
With the pandemic, a sense of urgency has thrust onto the world stage opinions that in the past might have been quietly held theories based on preliminary studies. However, even the most careful scientists who might otherwise have been content to patiently wait for peer review are sharing their findings prematurely with international news sources and on social media. Not surprisingly, this rush to share has generated confusion and concern and in many cases resulted in retractions or corrections. Even more importantly, it has made us all skeptical about who these “experts” are, making often disproven pronouncements.
While my friends still persist in politely asking my opinion based on the same reports we are all reading on the Internet, I sense the nation as a whole has become wary of claimed expertise. I haven’t done a Google search but I wouldn’t be surprised if “expert” gets far fewer hits than the term “so-called expert.”
Even before we were engulfed by the pandemic, there has been an unfortunate phenomenon in which health care providers and other scientists are parlaying their degrees to promote products with little if any proven efficacy. Of course, this country has a long history of snake oil salesmen making their rounds. However, the electronic media and the Internet have increased the power to persuade so that we are awash in so-called experts. Many good scientists, in an attempt to be helpful, have succumbed to the sin of impatience. And there are a few who had never earned the moniker “expert.”
I hope that expertise returns to the landscape when the pandemic abates. But, I fear it may be a while.
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].
Unless your social circle is packed with medical professionals, I suspect you are the go-to gal/guy when there is a question about the pandemic. Seated around the fire pit trying to stay warm and socially distanced, inevitably the discussion will turn to COVID. Someone will report something they have read about vaccine side effects or the appropriate timing of isolation or quarantine and then turn to me assuming that I have inside information and ask: “But Will you know all about that. Tell us what have you heard.”
By now, well into our second year of the pandemic, my friends and neighbors should have come to expect my usual answer. “I don’t really know any more about this than you have read on the Internet or seen on television.” I am flattered that folks keep asking for my observations. I guess old habits die slowly. Although I usually introduce myself as an ex-pediatrician, the “doctor” descriptor still seems to command some respect, whether it is deserved or not.
It is not just my waning ability to speak authoritatively about the pandemic that has put expertise at death’s door. Although my formal medical education is more than a half-century old, like most physicians I have tried to stay abreast of what’s happening in health care. Keeping up to date with the new developments in pathophysiology and pharmacology does take some work, but the pandemic has shone a spotlight on how quickly these changes can occur.
With the pandemic, a sense of urgency has thrust onto the world stage opinions that in the past might have been quietly held theories based on preliminary studies. However, even the most careful scientists who might otherwise have been content to patiently wait for peer review are sharing their findings prematurely with international news sources and on social media. Not surprisingly, this rush to share has generated confusion and concern and in many cases resulted in retractions or corrections. Even more importantly, it has made us all skeptical about who these “experts” are, making often disproven pronouncements.
While my friends still persist in politely asking my opinion based on the same reports we are all reading on the Internet, I sense the nation as a whole has become wary of claimed expertise. I haven’t done a Google search but I wouldn’t be surprised if “expert” gets far fewer hits than the term “so-called expert.”
Even before we were engulfed by the pandemic, there has been an unfortunate phenomenon in which health care providers and other scientists are parlaying their degrees to promote products with little if any proven efficacy. Of course, this country has a long history of snake oil salesmen making their rounds. However, the electronic media and the Internet have increased the power to persuade so that we are awash in so-called experts. Many good scientists, in an attempt to be helpful, have succumbed to the sin of impatience. And there are a few who had never earned the moniker “expert.”
I hope that expertise returns to the landscape when the pandemic abates. But, I fear it may be a while.
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].
Unless your social circle is packed with medical professionals, I suspect you are the go-to gal/guy when there is a question about the pandemic. Seated around the fire pit trying to stay warm and socially distanced, inevitably the discussion will turn to COVID. Someone will report something they have read about vaccine side effects or the appropriate timing of isolation or quarantine and then turn to me assuming that I have inside information and ask: “But Will you know all about that. Tell us what have you heard.”
By now, well into our second year of the pandemic, my friends and neighbors should have come to expect my usual answer. “I don’t really know any more about this than you have read on the Internet or seen on television.” I am flattered that folks keep asking for my observations. I guess old habits die slowly. Although I usually introduce myself as an ex-pediatrician, the “doctor” descriptor still seems to command some respect, whether it is deserved or not.
It is not just my waning ability to speak authoritatively about the pandemic that has put expertise at death’s door. Although my formal medical education is more than a half-century old, like most physicians I have tried to stay abreast of what’s happening in health care. Keeping up to date with the new developments in pathophysiology and pharmacology does take some work, but the pandemic has shone a spotlight on how quickly these changes can occur.
With the pandemic, a sense of urgency has thrust onto the world stage opinions that in the past might have been quietly held theories based on preliminary studies. However, even the most careful scientists who might otherwise have been content to patiently wait for peer review are sharing their findings prematurely with international news sources and on social media. Not surprisingly, this rush to share has generated confusion and concern and in many cases resulted in retractions or corrections. Even more importantly, it has made us all skeptical about who these “experts” are, making often disproven pronouncements.
While my friends still persist in politely asking my opinion based on the same reports we are all reading on the Internet, I sense the nation as a whole has become wary of claimed expertise. I haven’t done a Google search but I wouldn’t be surprised if “expert” gets far fewer hits than the term “so-called expert.”
Even before we were engulfed by the pandemic, there has been an unfortunate phenomenon in which health care providers and other scientists are parlaying their degrees to promote products with little if any proven efficacy. Of course, this country has a long history of snake oil salesmen making their rounds. However, the electronic media and the Internet have increased the power to persuade so that we are awash in so-called experts. Many good scientists, in an attempt to be helpful, have succumbed to the sin of impatience. And there are a few who had never earned the moniker “expert.”
I hope that expertise returns to the landscape when the pandemic abates. But, I fear it may be a while.
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].
Responding to the Pandemic: How is the VA doing?
The VA’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 Response Report is now in its third iteration as the pandemic continues. On the bright side, as Steven Lieberman, MD, deputy under secretary for health at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), writes in the report’s introduction, “we have learned a great deal about mounting a national response to a public health crisis.”
“Annex B” covers January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021, building on the 2 previous reports. All 3 have sought to capture and share lessons learned, with updated information on vaccination, elder care, health equity, mental health, health care ethics, preparedness, and other topics.
As the pandemic evolved, so did the VA efforts to cope with it. This iteration, for instance, deals with details of the campaign that vaccinated more than 2.5 million people “while sustaining all other aspects of the pandemic response and veteran health services,” and how the VA implemented a vaccine mandate for all VA employees in health care roles—the first federal agency to do so. In addition to vaccinating veterans, the Strengthening and Amplifying Vaccination Efforts to Locally Immunize All Veterans and Every Spouse (SAVE LIVES) Act led to nearly 80,000 other vaccinations among families, caregivers, and veterans who do not use VHA services.
The VA also conducted extensive COVID-19 testing, processing as many as 70,000 to 90,000 tests per week. It enhanced telehealth services to reach home-based and rural veterans, for an almost 2,500% increase in home-based primary care. Recognizing the added stress the pandemic put on people at risk for suicide, the VHA used predictive analytic tools specific to veterans with COVID-19 and monitored “high-risk flags,” using them to identify veterans for tailored outreach.
The response also included carrying out 158 Federal Emergency Management Agency Fourth Mission assignments. The report highlights the contributions of the more than 1,600 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees who volunteered to deploy across the country, often multiple times.
In addition to active response, more than 300 studies on COVID-19 have been published by VA researchers.
The current status report discusses how to expand what worked and to improve what did not. For instance, one unsurprising finding was that “the sustained pandemic response has imposed stress on the workforce, most evident in the nursing workforce.” The recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy with metrics and actions to monitor and mitigate stress on the health care workforce, facilitate wellness, and enhance retention.
The finding that VHA has demonstrated that telehealth usage for care to elderly veterans is “beneficial and feasible with the right technical support” led to recommendations for expanded research to identify effective COVID-19 prevention and intervention measures for elderly veterans residing at home or in long-term care facilities.
The research found that VHA processes for protecting community living center (CLC) residents during the pandemic “have succeeded in keeping rates of CLC-onset COVID-19 at the same rate as for the population of enrolled veterans over 65,” the report says. The recommendation based on that finding is to develop an information system to facilitate monitoring of state-run veterans homes for indicators of infectious disease risk, combining periodic assessment results with epidemiologic community data.
However, the report also acknowledges unexpected detours or blocks. “Planning for the mass vaccination campaign was highly effective, but did not anticipate the complexity of interagency support.” And “[t[he inability to access state vaccination data left VHA with an incomplete picture of the vaccination status of enrolled veterans.” In response, the VA recommends incorporating interagency support into planning templates and pursuing legislative action to enable the VA to obtain vaccination data from states.
Overall, the report gives the VA high marks for managing a “well-coordinated response” to an overwhelming crisis. But the lessons are not over.
“As we continue to address the pandemic and as new variants arise,” Dr. Lieberman said in comments, “it is clear that continuous learning and improvement are essential to a successful COVID-19 response. We will continue to update this report to document our efforts so veterans, doctors, and the public can understand and learn from what we’ve discovered to better serve our veterans and communities.” Stay tuned for Annex C.
The VA’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 Response Report is now in its third iteration as the pandemic continues. On the bright side, as Steven Lieberman, MD, deputy under secretary for health at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), writes in the report’s introduction, “we have learned a great deal about mounting a national response to a public health crisis.”
“Annex B” covers January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021, building on the 2 previous reports. All 3 have sought to capture and share lessons learned, with updated information on vaccination, elder care, health equity, mental health, health care ethics, preparedness, and other topics.
As the pandemic evolved, so did the VA efforts to cope with it. This iteration, for instance, deals with details of the campaign that vaccinated more than 2.5 million people “while sustaining all other aspects of the pandemic response and veteran health services,” and how the VA implemented a vaccine mandate for all VA employees in health care roles—the first federal agency to do so. In addition to vaccinating veterans, the Strengthening and Amplifying Vaccination Efforts to Locally Immunize All Veterans and Every Spouse (SAVE LIVES) Act led to nearly 80,000 other vaccinations among families, caregivers, and veterans who do not use VHA services.
The VA also conducted extensive COVID-19 testing, processing as many as 70,000 to 90,000 tests per week. It enhanced telehealth services to reach home-based and rural veterans, for an almost 2,500% increase in home-based primary care. Recognizing the added stress the pandemic put on people at risk for suicide, the VHA used predictive analytic tools specific to veterans with COVID-19 and monitored “high-risk flags,” using them to identify veterans for tailored outreach.
The response also included carrying out 158 Federal Emergency Management Agency Fourth Mission assignments. The report highlights the contributions of the more than 1,600 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees who volunteered to deploy across the country, often multiple times.
In addition to active response, more than 300 studies on COVID-19 have been published by VA researchers.
The current status report discusses how to expand what worked and to improve what did not. For instance, one unsurprising finding was that “the sustained pandemic response has imposed stress on the workforce, most evident in the nursing workforce.” The recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy with metrics and actions to monitor and mitigate stress on the health care workforce, facilitate wellness, and enhance retention.
The finding that VHA has demonstrated that telehealth usage for care to elderly veterans is “beneficial and feasible with the right technical support” led to recommendations for expanded research to identify effective COVID-19 prevention and intervention measures for elderly veterans residing at home or in long-term care facilities.
The research found that VHA processes for protecting community living center (CLC) residents during the pandemic “have succeeded in keeping rates of CLC-onset COVID-19 at the same rate as for the population of enrolled veterans over 65,” the report says. The recommendation based on that finding is to develop an information system to facilitate monitoring of state-run veterans homes for indicators of infectious disease risk, combining periodic assessment results with epidemiologic community data.
However, the report also acknowledges unexpected detours or blocks. “Planning for the mass vaccination campaign was highly effective, but did not anticipate the complexity of interagency support.” And “[t[he inability to access state vaccination data left VHA with an incomplete picture of the vaccination status of enrolled veterans.” In response, the VA recommends incorporating interagency support into planning templates and pursuing legislative action to enable the VA to obtain vaccination data from states.
Overall, the report gives the VA high marks for managing a “well-coordinated response” to an overwhelming crisis. But the lessons are not over.
“As we continue to address the pandemic and as new variants arise,” Dr. Lieberman said in comments, “it is clear that continuous learning and improvement are essential to a successful COVID-19 response. We will continue to update this report to document our efforts so veterans, doctors, and the public can understand and learn from what we’ve discovered to better serve our veterans and communities.” Stay tuned for Annex C.
The VA’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 Response Report is now in its third iteration as the pandemic continues. On the bright side, as Steven Lieberman, MD, deputy under secretary for health at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), writes in the report’s introduction, “we have learned a great deal about mounting a national response to a public health crisis.”
“Annex B” covers January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021, building on the 2 previous reports. All 3 have sought to capture and share lessons learned, with updated information on vaccination, elder care, health equity, mental health, health care ethics, preparedness, and other topics.
As the pandemic evolved, so did the VA efforts to cope with it. This iteration, for instance, deals with details of the campaign that vaccinated more than 2.5 million people “while sustaining all other aspects of the pandemic response and veteran health services,” and how the VA implemented a vaccine mandate for all VA employees in health care roles—the first federal agency to do so. In addition to vaccinating veterans, the Strengthening and Amplifying Vaccination Efforts to Locally Immunize All Veterans and Every Spouse (SAVE LIVES) Act led to nearly 80,000 other vaccinations among families, caregivers, and veterans who do not use VHA services.
The VA also conducted extensive COVID-19 testing, processing as many as 70,000 to 90,000 tests per week. It enhanced telehealth services to reach home-based and rural veterans, for an almost 2,500% increase in home-based primary care. Recognizing the added stress the pandemic put on people at risk for suicide, the VHA used predictive analytic tools specific to veterans with COVID-19 and monitored “high-risk flags,” using them to identify veterans for tailored outreach.
The response also included carrying out 158 Federal Emergency Management Agency Fourth Mission assignments. The report highlights the contributions of the more than 1,600 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees who volunteered to deploy across the country, often multiple times.
In addition to active response, more than 300 studies on COVID-19 have been published by VA researchers.
The current status report discusses how to expand what worked and to improve what did not. For instance, one unsurprising finding was that “the sustained pandemic response has imposed stress on the workforce, most evident in the nursing workforce.” The recommendation: Develop a comprehensive strategy with metrics and actions to monitor and mitigate stress on the health care workforce, facilitate wellness, and enhance retention.
The finding that VHA has demonstrated that telehealth usage for care to elderly veterans is “beneficial and feasible with the right technical support” led to recommendations for expanded research to identify effective COVID-19 prevention and intervention measures for elderly veterans residing at home or in long-term care facilities.
The research found that VHA processes for protecting community living center (CLC) residents during the pandemic “have succeeded in keeping rates of CLC-onset COVID-19 at the same rate as for the population of enrolled veterans over 65,” the report says. The recommendation based on that finding is to develop an information system to facilitate monitoring of state-run veterans homes for indicators of infectious disease risk, combining periodic assessment results with epidemiologic community data.
However, the report also acknowledges unexpected detours or blocks. “Planning for the mass vaccination campaign was highly effective, but did not anticipate the complexity of interagency support.” And “[t[he inability to access state vaccination data left VHA with an incomplete picture of the vaccination status of enrolled veterans.” In response, the VA recommends incorporating interagency support into planning templates and pursuing legislative action to enable the VA to obtain vaccination data from states.
Overall, the report gives the VA high marks for managing a “well-coordinated response” to an overwhelming crisis. But the lessons are not over.
“As we continue to address the pandemic and as new variants arise,” Dr. Lieberman said in comments, “it is clear that continuous learning and improvement are essential to a successful COVID-19 response. We will continue to update this report to document our efforts so veterans, doctors, and the public can understand and learn from what we’ve discovered to better serve our veterans and communities.” Stay tuned for Annex C.