Category: Health

With Covid-19, War on Plastic Takes “a Back Seat to the Larger Quest for the Health and Security of Travelers”

(p. B9) Will planetary health be as urgent to travelers focused on preserving personal health? In a germophobic world, will single-use plastics make a comeback?

“The work on reduction of plastic is going to take a back seat to the larger quest for the health and security of travelers,” said Megan Epler Wood, the managing director of the Sustainable Tourism Asset Management Program at Cornell University.

For the full commentary, see:

Elaine Glusac. “Is the Green Wave Over?” The New York Times (Saturday, May 16, 2020): B9.

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated May 6 [sic], 2020, and has the same title as the print version.)

Fauci Tries to Explain Shifting Position on Face Masks

(p. A9) . . . Dr. Fauci grew testy when Representative David B. McKinley, Republican of West Virginia, asked him if he thought the news media had treated Mr. Trump unfairly — Dr. Fauci declined to answer — and whether he regretted not advising people more forcefully to wear masks earlier in the pandemic.

“OK, we’re going to play that game,” Dr. Fauci said, seemingly irked. Mr. McKinley said it was a yes-or-no question.

“There is more than a yes or no, by the tone of your question,” Dr. Fauci shot back. “I do not regret that. Let me explain to you what happened. At that time, there was a paucity of equipment that our health care providers needed who put themselves daily in harm’s way of taking care of people who are ill.”

For the full story, see:

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Noah Weiland. “Experts Sketch Gloomy Picture Of Virus Spread.” The New York Times (Wednesday, June 24, 2020): A1 & A9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 23, 2020, and has the title “Fauci, Citing ‘Disturbing Surge,’ Tells Congress the Virus Is Not Under Control.”)

If Aerosols Transmit Covid-19, It Is Even More Prudent to Wear Masks

(p. A1) The coronavirus is finding new victims worldwide, in bars and restaurants, offices, markets and casinos, giving rise to frightening clusters of infection that increasingly confirm what many scientists have been saying for months: The virus lingers in the air indoors, infecting those nearby.

If airborne transmission is a significant factor in the pandemic, especially in crowded spaces with poor ventilation, the consequences for containment will be significant. Masks may be needed indoors, even in socially-distant settings. Health care workers may need N95 masks that filter out even the smallest respiratory droplets as they care for coronavirus patients.

Ventilation systems in schools, nursing homes, residences and businesses may need to minimize recirculating air and add powerful new filters. Ultraviolet lights may be needed to kill viral particles floating in tiny droplets indoors.

The World Health Organization has long held that the coronavirus is spread primarily by large respiratory droplets that, once expelled by infected people in coughs and sneezes, fall quickly to the floor.

But in an open letter to the W.H.O., 239 scientists in 32 countries have outlined the evidence showing that smaller particles can infect people, and are calling for the agency to revise its recommendations. The researchers plan to publish their letter in a (p. A5) scientific journal this week.

. . .

Dr. Benedetta Allegranzi, the W.H.O.’s technical lead on infection control, said the evidence for the virus spreading by air was unconvincing.

. . .

But interviews with nearly 20 scientists — including a dozen W.H.O. consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance — and internal emails paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science.

Whether carried aloft by large droplets that zoom through the air after a sneeze, or by much smaller exhaled droplets that may glide the length of a room, these experts said, the coronavirus is borne through air and can infect people when inhaled. Continue reading “If Aerosols Transmit Covid-19, It Is Even More Prudent to Wear Masks”

“How Swimming Frees Their Minds”

(p. 11) Tsui endears herself to the reader . . . . Her universal query is also one of self, and her articulations of what she learns are moving. Long-distance swimmers speak to her about how swimming frees their minds, of their sense of “sea-dreaming.” And Tsui’s argument about the unique state of flow one enters while swimming makes you desperately long to be in the pool or the ocean. Water becomes the mind’s sanctuary while the body moves in its best imitations of a fish.

For the full review, see:

Mary Pols. “Deep Dive.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, June 14, 2020): 11.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date April [sic] 14, 2020, and has the title “Eat. Sleep. Swim. Repeat.”)

The book under review is:

Tsui, Bonnie. Why We Swim. New York: Algonquin Books, 2020.

CDC Urges Americans to Wear Masks

(p. A6) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urged Americans on Friday [June 12.2020] to wear masks and distance themselves from others as states reopen and large gatherings take place, including protests related to the killing of George Floyd and events tied to the presidential election.

For the full story, see:

Brianna Abbott, and Betsy McKay. “CDC Sets Guidelines For Safety In Public.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, June 13, 2020): A6.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 12, 2020, and the title “CDC Encourages Wearing Masks, Other Coronavirus Precautions at Gatherings.” Where there is a minor difference between versions, the passage quoted follows the online version. But the online version lists McKay’s name first.)

Poll Says Two-Thirds of Voters Wear Mask When Outside the House

(p. A4) . . . an overwhelming majority, 80%, feel that the country is spiraling out of control, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

. . .

Roughly two-thirds of voters said they always wear a mask when they leave the house, compared with 21% who sometimes wear one and 15% who said they rarely or never do.

. . .

The Journal/NBC News poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from May 28 through June 2. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

For the full story, see:

Michael C. Bender. “Nation Deeply Worried, Poll Finds.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 8, 2020): A4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 7, 2020, and has the title “Americans Are More Troubled by Police Actions in Killing of George Floyd Than by Violence at Protests, Poll Finds.” The last two sentences quoted above appear in the online, but not the print, version.)

Vaccine Progress Gives Hope That Pandemic Will Begin to End in September

(p. A1) In a medical research project nearly unrivaled in its ambition and scope, volunteers worldwide are rolling up their sleeves to receive experimental vaccines against the coronavirus — only months after the virus was identified.

Companies like Inovio and Pfizer have begun early tests of candidates in people to determine whether their vaccines are safe. Researchers at the University of Oxford in England are testing vaccines in human subjects, too, and say they could have one ready for emergency use as soon as September.

. . .

(p. A11) The coronavirus itself has turned out to be clumsy prey, a stable pathogen unlikely to mutate significantly and dodge a vaccine.

“It’s an easier target, which is terrific news,” said Michael Farzan, a virologist at Scripps Research in Jupiter, Fla.

An effective vaccine will be crucial to ending the pandemic, which has sickened at least 4.7 million worldwide and killed at least 324,000. Widespread immunity would reopen the door to lives without social distancing and face masks.

For the full story, see:

Carl Zimmer, Knvul Sheikh and Noah Weiland. “Tests Fuel Hope That Vaccine Is Months, Not Years, Away.” The New York Times (Thursday, May 21, 2020): A1 & A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated June [sic] 10, 2020 and has the title “A New Entry in the Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine: Hope.” The online versions says that the title of the New York print version is “Labs Step Up Race to Be First, Or Even 4th, to Find a Vaccine.” the title of my National print version was “Tests Fuel Hope That Vaccine Is Months, Not Years, Away.”)

Rigid Merged Health Systems Cause Slow Covid-19 Testing

(p. A1) When a stay-at-home order in March all but closed the revered labs of the gene-editing pioneer Jennifer Doudna, her team at the University of California, Berkeley dropped everything and started testing for the coronavirus.

They expected their institute to be inundated with samples since it was offering the service for free, with support from philanthropies. But there were few takers.

Instead, the scientists learned, many local hospitals and doctors’ offices continued sending samples to national laboratory companies — like LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics — even though, early on, patients had to wait a week or more for results. The bureaucratic hurdles of quickly switching to a new lab were just too high.

. . .

(p. A5) In normal times, scientists at the Innovative Genomics Institute at Berkeley spend their time advancing the gene-editing technology called Crispr that the lab’s founder, Dr. Doudna, is known for.

But after the pandemic shut down the institute’s research in March, Dr. Doudna called for volunteers to redirect most of the labs’ work to coronavirus testing. The country was clamoring for more tests, after all, and her lab was full of researchers with the technical skills to make it happen.

Unlike many other major research institutions, Berkeley does not have a medical school or run its own hospital. So Dr. Urnov reached out to others in the area, who were still ordering from LabCorp and Quest, despite lengthy delays in processing results at the time.

“We would come to these entities and say, ‘Hi, we hear you have problems,’” Dr. Urnov recalled. “And they said, ‘Well, you have to basically work with our EHR,’” the acronym for electronic health records.

For the full story, see:

Katie Thomas. “In Testing Chaos, Some Labs Drowned While Others Sat Idle.” The New York Times (Friday, May 22, 2020): A1 & A5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 21, 2020 and has the title “These Labs Rushed to Test for Coronavirus. They Had Few Takers.”)

“For Every Scientist Employed by the F.D.A., There Are Three Lawyers”

(p. 5) Imagine that the fateful day arrives. Scientists have created a successful vaccine. They’ve manufactured huge quantities of it. People are dying. The economy is crumbling. It’s time to start injecting people.

But first, the federal government wants to take a peek.

That might seem like a bureaucratic nightmare, a rubber stamp that could cost lives. There’s even a common gripe among researchers: For every scientist employed by the F.D.A., there are three lawyers. And all they care about is liability.

For the full commentary, see:

Stuart A. Thompson. “How Long Will a Vaccine Really Take?” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sunday, May 3, 2020): 4-5.

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated April 30, 2020 and has the same title as the print version.)

Hydroxychloroquine Clinical Trials Suspended on Basis of Lancet Article Containing “Major Inconsistencies”

(p. A11) A group of scientists who raised questions last week about a study in The Lancet about the use of antimalarial drugs in coronavirus patients have now objected to another paper about blood pressure medicines in the New England Journal of Medicine, which was published by some of the same authors and relied on the same data registry.

Moments after their open letter was posted online Tuesday morning [June 2, 2020], the editors of the N.E.J.M. posted an “expression of concern” about the paper, and said they had asked the paper’s authors to provide evidence that the data are reliable.

The Lancet followed later in the day with a statement about its own concerns regarding the malarial drugs paper, saying that the editors have commissioned an independent audit of the data.

. . .

In their letter to the N.E.J.M., critics of the work wrote: “Serious, and as yet unanswered, concerns have been raised about the integrity and provenance of these data.”

The letter points out “major inconsistencies” between the number of coronavirus cases recorded in some countries during the study period and the number of patient outcomes reported by the researchers over the same period.

. . .

Many of the scientists who first raised concerns about the database are involved in clinical trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and they were forced to pause the studies for safety reviews after The Lancet study was published.

James Watson, a senior scientist with MORU Tropical Health Network, said his unit had to immediately suspend work on a large randomized clinical trial to see if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine can protect health care workers exposed on the job to the coronavirus from infection.

“I saw very quickly this paper didn’t hold up to much scrutiny at all,” he said. “We started wondering, ‘Who’s been collecting this data, and where did it come from?’ We were quite surprised to see a global study with only four authors listed and no acknowledgment of anyone else.”

. . .

David Glidden, a professor of biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco, who reads all new publications about Covid-19 antiviral therapies as a member of a National Institutes of Health clinical guidelines panel, said he was immediately struck by the vagueness of the descriptions in both papers.

For the full story, see:

Roni Caryn Rabin. “Scientists Question Medical Data From Single Company Used in Two Studies.” The New York Times (Wednesday, June 3, 2020): A11.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the article was updated June 2, 2020, and had the title “Scientists Question Medical Data Used in Second Coronavirus Study.”)